CONFRQNTING THE CHALLENGE OF DISTRIBUTION: WOMEN DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKEXS IN INDIA

Dipti Gupta

A Thesis

in

The Department

of

Communication Studies

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at Coucordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada

May 1998

(c) Dipti Gupta, 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada Yow file Votre refërence

Our Us Notre refdrence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Table of Contents

Abstract ...... Acknowledgements ...... II

Part 1: introduction ...... 1

Chapter One: The Early Films, Cornrnitted Documentaries and Women's Cinema...... 15

Chapter Two: Filmmaking and Distribution: A Challenge for Women Filmmaken in India ...... 25

Chapter Three: Suhasini Mulay: Focusing on Distribution ...... 39

Conclusion The Future of the Indian Docurnentary Film: Strategies of Production, Exhibition, And Distribution in India ...... 54

Part II: THE FILMlMAKERS SPEAK......

(Transcripts of Interviews with Filmmakers)

Questionnaire ...... 58

Interview with Jharna Jhaveri: New Delhi ...... 59

Interview with Rinki Roy: Bombay ...... 78

Interview with Manjira Datta: New Delhi ...... 89

Interview with Suhasini Mulay: New Delhi ...... 97

Bibliography ...... 125 Abstract

Confionting the Challenge of Distribution: Women Docurnentary Filmmakers in India

Dipti Gupta

Since 1980, Indian women have moved into documentary filmmaking in increasing numbers using film as a tool for raising consciousness and social change. Their work reflects an extensive variety of styles and genres, a comprehensive range of subjects, a broad spectrum of ideological perspectives - revealing the diversity that India represents. Yet, independent documentary filrnrnakers remain economicalIy and politically marginalized in India and unknown in the international comrnunity.

This is a study of four Indian women documentary filmmakers: Jharna Jhaveri,

Rinki Roy, Manjira Datta and Suhasini Mulay. At the center of this thesis are intewiews with these four women which were conducted in 1996 and 1997. These interviews chronicle the practices of documentary film making and the struggles of these women to make space in the industry. The thesis acknowledges the role of women in documentary film making in India and the process of its production and distribution of documentary films. In conclusion the thesis indicates the need for a distribution nehvork in India to promote and circulate the works of documentary filrnrnakers. Acknowledgrnents

The idea for this thesis was sown during the tirne 1 worked with Suhasini Mulay in New Deihi. I consider her my mentor and fnend and dedicate this work to her.

Working with her, 1 leamt to value documentary films and she challenged and inspired me to write about the work of women documentary filmmakers in India.

This project would not have been possible without the participation and encouragement of filmmakers like Suhasini, fiama Jhaveri, Manjira Datta, Reena

Mohan, Seemantinï Dhum, Rinki Roy, Sabina Kidwai, Ranjani Majumdar, Shikha

Ihingan and Sehjo Singh. This thesis includes and focuses mainly on the work of only four of the mentioned filmmakers, but the rest of the material will be used in future projects.

During my time at Concordia, I've been fortunate to work with a stimulating and diverse group of teachers in the Graduate Program in Communication. I would like to thank Kim Sawchuk who saw me through the many times when I despaired of ever finishing this project. I thank her for her advice, guidance and fkiendship. Thanks also to

Thomas Waugh for believing in this project and to Tilly Janowitz for her encouragement and support. Each of them, in their own ways, taught me a great deal and made this a leaming process.

1 thank Sheelah O'Neil and Sharon Fitch for their unconditional assistance. 1 would Iike to thank al1 the iibrarians - at the Webster and the Vanier at Concordia

University who were always very kind and helpful.

No project is complete without unending support and encouragement from farnily and fkiends. There are literally too many to name but I will always be gratehl to each one of them. Nevertheless, 1 am grateful to rny parents for the unending support and love always. I would like to especially thank Robyn Diner for editing my thesis and Raminder

Singh for helping me to transcribe the interviews and guide me through my major cornputer problems. I thank Luvleen Mishra for joining me at the Film Festival at

Bombay and encouraging me at every step with her wit and humor. 1 appreciate the constant support 1 got fiom my partner Rahul Varma to see through this project.

The Shastri Indo-Canadian fellowship provided me with both a travel grant and a research grant, allowing me to undertake research in India and conduct the interviews.

Finally, I am happy to Say that my daughter Aliya was boni at the time 1 was stmggling to finish this project.

... III INTRODUCTION

Hzstory and Contert oflhe Study

There are two main reasons why I initiated this study of Indian women documentary fi lmmakers. First, women directors of Indian ongin have been generally ignored in academic film literature. Secondly, 1 wished to explore the question of documentaries and social change. With these No preliminary ideas in mind 1 proceeded.

The task seemed quite simple: my approach was to conduct structured interviews and to do a textual analysis of social or educational documentary films. These explorations would take place within the nibric of a sustained developrnent to understand the work of these filmmakers within an Indian context. However, as 1progressed with the research f realized, that no documentation of the contribution of Indian women documentary filmmakers existed. As in any initial exploration, I found less of what 1 was looking for and more new directions to research. In the end, I did not really look at the films. Rather 1 concentrate.my efforts on writing about the challenges that women face in this field.

Since August 1987, 1 have been associated with Cinemart Foundation, an independent group of docurnentary filmmakers based in New Delhi. The group was headed initially by Tapan Bose and Suhasini Mulay who have since lefl to pursue other interests. 1 was the second woman to join Cinemart Foundation. This was just the begi~ingof my exposure to an industry mostly dominated by men. During the following four years that 1 worked in that organization, I realized that there was a dearth of documentation on the contribution of women in the field of documentary filmmaking. For example, there was hardly any record of the work that women had done in the field and most of the articles in joumals and magazines focused on the developrnent of docurnentary and short film in India, rather than on individual contributions.

Upon moving to Canada, and entering the academic sphere, my view was fûrther confirmed. Many people were aware of the Bombay Film Indushy and could discuss the

"song and dance" aspect of Bollywood cinemat Journais like Screen, Cineaste,

Framework and others within academic circles have camed extensive articles focusing on different aspects of this industry. Yet, the movement of documentary filmmakers in the

Indian sub-continent remains nearly invisible. In the past decade or so there have been only a few articles and some secondary literature that have featured the documentary scene in hdia. Hence, my peers expressed surprise that there were any women documentary filmmakers in India. in turn, 1 decided to write my thesis on the contribution of Indian women documentary filmmakers.

First, Second and mird Cinema: A Literature Review

Cinerna came to India within one year of its invention in the West. It started with short films on wrestling and the training of monkeys made by the pioneering filmmaker

Sakharam Bhatwadekar.* Two tendencies emerged much later: the concept of film as an art form and the culture of short and documentary films.'

--- -- I India's motion picture industry has been dominated by "commercial" or Bollywood fih. Films made with mega stars like Amitabh Bachchan, Rajesh Khanna, Dilip Kumar, Sahan Khan and others are widely known outside the country. This industry produces mainly popular and commercial films that are the mainstay of india's film industry. These films are popuiar with most of the people and are widely distributed within india and outside. They are quite popular with the Indian diaspora living outside the nation. .)- For a comprehensive history of the Indian cinema, see: E. Barnouw and S. Knshnaswamy, indian Film, (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1963). 3 "Out of Focus," Documedia: Federation of Film Societies of India, (Bombay: FiImotsav, 1986) iii. There exists already a theoretically well developed division of the global film

industxy into First, Second, and Third Cinerna. This division has developed over the past

century in waves of reaction to and against the metropole-centred film industries of the colonial powers, or what is called First Cinema, the cinema of corporate profits, that requires massive capital investment. Second Cinema, the so-called "art cinema," is the cinema of the post-World War II European city exemplified by the neo-realist genre.

Finally, Third Cinema is the radicaVsubversive cinema that developed in Third World corntries with the intent to radicalize directly and cal1 to action members of the a~dience.~While global cinema can be divided into these categones, my study in India indicates that these three categories exist within the geographical confinements of the country. Bollywood films are India's "First Cinema", films like Sholay (1975), Maine

Pvar Kiva (1989), Aeneeoath (1990) are massive money makers and fa11 into this category.' These films also syrnbolize the national cinema of India. The Art films or the parailel films of India, which becarne quite prominent during the 1970s and the early

1980s, can be categorized as the Second Cinema of India. Films like Manthan (1976),

Aakrosh (1980), Bhavani Bhavai (1980), Arth (1982), Mirch Masala. (1985) fa11 into this category. Finally the docurnentary falls into the third category of Third Cinema of the country. This cinema is the "counter or radical" cinema of the country with the intention

4 Gerald M. Macdonald, "Third Cinerna and the Third World," Place. Power. Situation. and Spectacle: A Geoma~hyof Film, eds.,Stuart C. Aitken and Leo E. Zonn, (London: Rowrnan and Littlefield, 1994) 28. 5 Sholav(1975) directed by Ramesh Sippy, Maine Pvar Kiva(I989) directed by Sooraj Barjatya, Amernath( 1990) directed by Mukul S.Anand, Manthan( 1976) directed by Shyam Benegal, Aakrosh( 1980) directed by Govind Nihalani, m(1982) directed by Mahesh Bhatt, Mirch MasaIa(1985) directed by Ketan Mehta. Source: Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Paul Willeman, Encvclo~aediaof Indian Cinema, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994). of transforming the ideology of its audience. Thomas Waugh elaborates more on the position of this third cinema of India in his article 'Words of Comrnand.'

This dynamic counter-cinema is in effect a domestic third cinema, a small but effective irritant in the Bank of the elephantine first cinema, the crisis- prone Bombay-Madras industry, and the anemic second cinema, the prestigious state-subsidized art cinema that stili monopolizes our attention in Western festivals and even in progressive periodicals like Frarne~ork.~

This "domestic third cinema" as Thomas Waugh calls it has had to battle for its swival against the first and second cinema of the country. As Waugh has stated, Indian documentaries are the "Third Cinema" of india. Originally conceived by the theorist

Teshome Gabriel, the impetus of Third Cinema was and continues to be participatory and contributive to the struggles for the liberation of the people of the "Third World." At present, these struggles for the liberation of the peoples of the 'niird World" where "the battles for history and around history" are ever more intensified, the original manifesto of

the "carnera as a gun" still holds.' "Third Cinema" in hdia is constantly competing against Bollywood films and the paralleVart cinema in India primarily for funding and audiences. Within this existuig fkamework women filmmakers are stmggling for space and recognition. The voice as well as the contribution of the women filmmakers in this

"Third Cinema" are practically absent or unrecognized, yet their work primarily falls in this category.

Anand Pahkrardhan, a documentary fihaker fkom hdia, has analyzed the position of the "dominant cinema" against the "documentary" in India eloquently in Show

Us Life. He emphasizes the role of the guemlla filmrnaker.

6 Thomas Waugh, "Words of Cornmanci: Notes on Cultural and Political inflections of Direct Cinema in Indian Independent Documentary," Cineaction, (Winter 1990-9 1) 28. 7 Gabriel H. Teshome, Third Cinema in the Third World, (-4nn Arbor, MI: UMi Research Press, 1982) 59. Especially for audiences in the Third World where literacy is low, films are as much a source of information as of entertainment. The dominant classes have already created the cinema of entertainment and escape. It remains for the guemlla filmrnaker to create the cinema of reality and ~hange.~

Interestingly, this term "guemlla" is used mostly for men and the chapter does not include the role or contribution of women filmmakers fiom India. In dus chapter, Anand

Parnardhan pnmarily relates to the challenges he personally has faced in the field. The term "guemlla filmrnaker" relates to Anand Patwardhan and his style of filmmaking. It has never been used for fernale filmmakers in India, regardless of the types of films they make or the challenges they also face on the job. According to Patwardhan, the cinema of entertainment and escape serves the interest of the bourgeoisie. The purpose of this cinema is not merely money making in the inmediate direct sense, but the propagation of a system that legitimizes the making of profit that it elevates to an ideal. It reinforces al1 the rnyths of the "Free World" such as the myths of "upward rnobility," "equal opportunity," "racial hamiony," "international goodwill," "fkeedom of speech" - in short, al1 the virhies of "democracy" as opposed to the evils of fascism, communism and baclcward pre-capitalist religi~n.~Anand Patwardhan Merdiscusses that this mydi that is presented by the "dominant cinema" to the illiterate people of India is a mockery and an illusion. It's a rnockery because it ofien tries to (unsuccessfully) imitate the life of the poor on the screen; and it's an illusion because it portrays how the poor and the meek corne out as winners in the end - raising false hopes and desires in the minds of the desolate. This portrayal contradicts the reality that the masses face in their daily lives.

8 Anand Patwardhan, "The Guemlla Film, Underground and in Exile: A Critique and a case study of waves of revolution" Show Us Life: Toward a Historv and Aesthetics of the Comrnitted Docurnentar\~. ed. Thomas Waugh (Metuchen, N.I.: Scarecrow, 1988) 461. O Anand Patwardhan, "The Guemlla Film - Underground and in Exile: A Critique and a case study Whatever appellation one chooses, "counter-cinema" has survived al1 odds.

Counter-cinema may be defined as a film practice that works against and challenges dominant cinerna, usually at the levels of both signifier and ~ignified.'~Since the 1973 publication of Claire lohnston's essay "Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema" filmmakers and critics have been concemed with the strategies of production, exhibition and distribution of independent feminist films. Claire Johnston argues that for feminist cinema to be effective, it must be a counter-cinema.

Any revolutionary must challenge the depiction of reality; it is not enough to discuss the oppression of women within the text of the film: the language of the cinemddepiction of reality must also be interrogated, so that a break between ideology and text is affected."

Counter-cinema tries to question the dominant modes of cinematic representation and to challenge the stereotypes that dominant cinema illustrates. Johnston indicates the multiple challenges that counter-cinema has to face. For example, this cinema has to deal with how the films will actually be made; and how they will reach their audience. The challenges and hardships that women face in the west are also true for women working in the field of documentary filmmaking in an Indian context.

My research on the subject of documentary filrnrnakers in India indicates that even the most etoquent authors like Jag Mohan, Sanjit Narwekar, Thomas Waugh, Eric

Barnouw and S. Krishnaswamy, have grouped al1 Indian documentary filmrnakers together in a general category of Third Cinema. In this process they have created a perception of unity that does not recognize the distinct contribution of women

of Waves of Revolution," M.A. thesis, McGill U, July 198 1.4-5. 10 Claire Johnston, "Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema," Notes on Women's Cinema, ed. Claire Johnston, (London, SEFT, 1973) 25. Il ibid. documentary filmrnakers. However, such a standpoint need not imply a common point of view, expenence, consciousness, psychology, or "nature" among women. Rather it acknowledges that, within patriarchal society, women tend to be excluded and subordinated. This is premised largely on the belief of most feminists that (i) we live in a male-dominated society, (ii) this is unjust and unnecessary, and (iii) it can and must be changed. It is clear that women filmmaken have made a specific contribution to filmmaking because of the way they have portrayed the role and status of women in

India. For example, many issues like conjugal violence were never discussed through this medium. Quite oeen in mainstream cinema a woman is il1 treated by her husband or in- laws and this has been an accepted form of behavior. Women have often been portrayed as meek, docile and usually non-assertive in the dominant cinema in India. Women docurnentary filmmakers have tried to break these stereotypes and give voice to women and women's issues through their documentaries. In a country like India that is unique for its diversity - geographically, politically, socially, it is important that one understands the distinct challenges women face.

There are several ways to look at the status of wornen in any society. One of the ways is to examine the common demographic indicators that give an overall picture of women's relative standing vis-a-vis men. According to the 1995 census in India, the sex ratio stood at 933 females per 1000 males. The literacy rate was 46.89 per cent for males and 24.82 per cent for females. Comparing these figures with the 198 1 census data, one notices that the status of women has improved very little. In other words, they continue to remain a disadvantaged group." According to Rehana Ghadially wornen face many

12 I wish to point out that India is a highly diverse country. it has a population of nearly a billion, with six main religions namely: Windu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain. The country has 16

7 hurdles in the Indian society.l3 She w-rites that according to grassroots autonomous women's groupsI4 rape is a major issue. The second concem of such groups revolves around women's oppression in the workplace. These groups demand equal wages for equal work, maternity benefits and creche facilities. They tend to also point out that working women need to form organizations to fight for these nghts. The third issue that concems these groups relates to representations of women in the media. They problematize portrayals of violence against women, along with the perpetuation of oppressive stereotypes of women that circulate throughout the mass media. A cluster of issues such as dowry deaths, organizing training camps for women activists, leadership training and sexual and mental harassrnent ranks fourth. The fifth set of problems according to these groups includes abolition of devadasi, providing water facilities in rurai areas, alcoholism among men and analyzing the roots of women's oppression." The final set of concems includes wife-beating, training wornen for health care, participation of men in housework, setting up special courts for women, education of scheduled caste women and protest against the nse in pnce of food items. Demographic factors, the

officia1 languages spoken in the 25 States and 7 Union Temtories. Each of the 16 languages possesses not only its own ancient and contemporary literature, its own newspapers, radio and tetevision programs. and films, but also its individual script. It also has the classic Ianguage of Sanskrit. On top of that India has over four hundred other languages, some written, others oral. And of course, as the joint language of administration there is English, a language that Indians have made uniquely their own in more than two centuries of usage.

I J Rehana GhadialIy, ed., Introduction Women in Indian Societv - A Reader (Sage Publications lndia Pvt. Ltd., 1988) 14- 15. 10 There are many wornen's groups in India, to name a few: Janwadi Mahila Samiti, Manushi, Jagori, Saheii, kali and many others.

Is An ancient practice prevalent in the South of India where girls were given away by the family to the temple to serve god. Later this practice was abused and the girls were treated as prostitutes by the temple priests or the royalty. marginalization of women in the developmental process and an oppressive social reality

highiight the miserable plight of women in India and the long struggle ahead of them.

Wornen documentary filmmakers have been struggling to raise these issues

through their films despite the challenges they face to produce and distribute their films.

Many questions emerge, but my focus for this study is to find out: How do Indian women

documentary filmmakers make their films and how do they distribute hem? 1 am

interested in the pressing theoretical and political question of filmmaking, documentanes, and issues as articulated by the Indian women filmmalcers themselves. For this study it is important to narrow down the quenes.

Thesis Question

According to Mary Ann Doane, the focus and effort of classical feminist studies is to recaphire the pst, and to "fil1 out" or complete the historical record. The underlying themes of such an approach are that women are "really there" or "did really do things," and that we can know in some direct or unmeditateci way what these things were. With respect to the documentation of the contribution of women docurnentary filmmakers fiom

India, the existing matenal says little about the role of women in the industry in earlier times. It also often under-records or even exciudes them altogether. Feminist film theory and cnticism has been particularly resistant to the naive empiricism of this rneth~dology.'~My attempt in this study is both to introduce the role and contribution of women filmmakers from the Indian sub-continent and to understand the various processes

filmmakers embrace in India. As 1 have emphasized earlier, 1 will study the objective,

16 Mary Ann Doane, 'Woman's Film: Possession and Address,' Re-Vision: Essavs in Feminist Film Criticism,(New York: The Amencan Film Institute, 1984) 67. modes of production and distribution that these filmmalcers adopt by listening to their own accounts of the process. The main point of this thesis is this: if wornen documentary filmmaken are to survive, they must not only produce films but they must exhibit and distribute them - for this is what connects the film to the audience. Insufficient attention has been paid to the issue of distribution.

Method

In 2996, I traveled to India and met with a few fjilmmakers and attended the

International film festival for documentary, short and animation films held in Bombay. 1 also tned to collect literature on the subject of women documentary filrnmakers fiom the

Pune Film Institute library and the archives in Pune, as well as fiom the Films Division library in Bombay. I soon realized that there was hardly any material on the subject.

Hence 1 decided to interview a few women filmmakers in order to get the necessary information f?om them. These interviews were conducted between November 1996 -

January 1997. The process was initiated much before the actual time the interviews were conducted.

Because of the lack of secondary literature, this thesis draws its analysis mainly from the interviews conducted with the filmmakers based in Bombay and New Deihi.

These interviews allow the women to speak in their own voices. The interviews prirnarily explore the process of documentary filmmaking that women filmmaken adopt in India.

Most of the theories pertaining to the documentary process emerge from western theorists. in order to understand the process in India, 1 depend and draw upon such existing theories. However, 1 have also based a significant amount of my analysis on the interviews as they highlight the experiences of the fiimmakers themselves. 1 conducted

ten interviews for my research, but 1have focused only on four for this project.

1 emphasize that at this moment, the lack of information we have about wornen

documentary filmmakers rnakes it more important to highlight the description of their practice. While 1 have drawn some cornparisons and similarities from existing western theones when they have been applicable to the thesis, my emphasis is not on theoretical debates within documentary film spheres.

Key Sources

The interviews that I conducted on a one to one bais with the filmmakers are rny primq source of information for this thesis. The questionnaire mainly focused on the issues the filmmakers have dealt with through their documentaries, their methods of production and their methods of distribution. For the interviews, 1had a pre-established questionnaire that influenced the direction of my work. AI1 respondents received the sarne questionnaire. 1 offered the filmmakerls the choice to read the questionnaire before the interview. Most of them briefly browsed through it and a couple of them were cornfortable enough to go "with the flow." Finally, they were interviewed face-to-face by me. Each interview was structured around the questionnaire.

While designing the interview, I was fully aware that I would be placing the

filmmakers on the other side of the fence. Typically documentary filmmakers ask the

questions. In this case 1 would be interviewhg the interviewer. A couple of the

filmmakers admitted that they were uncornfortable with this "new" position. AI1 of these interviews were recorded on either an audio or video format. 1 had my own mini tape-recorder for recording and 1 rented the video recorder from a local organization in New Delhi. Sometirnes I borrowed a camcorder from fnends. 1 would have liked to have al1 the interviews recorded on video but this was not possible with limited funds and the general unavailabiiity of equipment at times in India. (Not to mention power failures!) There were a couple of incidents where 1 was not able to hire a camera at the opportune the and hence had to rely on rny audio equiprnent to record the inte~ew.

The secondary sources for this research are histoncal texts, newspaper articles, magazines and articles on the subject of "documentary filmmaking in India." Much of this histoncal material was gathered at the library of the Films Division office in Bombay that has a collection of newspapers and magazines. Other material was gathered fiom the

Film Institute at Pune, a city near Bombay. The 1965 special issue of MARG has been helpful for this project.'7 The majority of the articles in this magazine (not surpnsingly) were written by male documentary filmrnakers/producers of that era. This issue clearly indicates the dominance of men in the documentary scene in India.

Funding for the Project

This project was largely fùnded by the indo-Shastri Canadian Institute. The institute granted me a fellowship for a period of four months, which lasted from

November 1996 to Febniary 1997. This allowed me to base myself in India to do rny research and field work. An initial trip was taken prior to this tirne, during which I did most of my preliminary research. This was through persona1 fùndingkavings. Organization of the Study

This thesis is divided into two parts. Part I deals with the theoretical issues and the

analysis of the 'modus operandi' of the filmmakers in order to understand their method of

production, exhibition and distribution. Part II carries the transcription of the interviews

with the four filmmakers. In my preliminary research three main topics emerged, which 1

elaborated on during my interview with the fiimmakers. These three aspects are the focus

of my study: (1) the objective of the filmmakers and their films, (2) the methods of production and (3) the methods of distribution adopted by women documentary

fiirnmakers in Lndia.

Focusing on these topics, 1 have divided Part I of the thesis in three chapters. The

first chapter overviews the history and major issues in documentary filmmaking and draws upon existing theories particularly related to the terni ''cornmitteci documentaries" as expounded by Thomas Waugh and Peter Steven. This chapter highlights some of the

issues that early documentary filmmakers explored in India and draws links or

cornparisons with issues explored by contemporary documentary filmmakers.

The second chapter highlights three women filmmakers: niama Jhaven, Manjira

Datta who are based in New Delhi and Rinki Roy who is based in Bombay. It examines

the objectives, the method of production and the distribution strategies adopted by

conternporary filmmakers. Following the mode1 and concepts developed by Julia Lesage,

I study the format and modes of production and distribution that the filmmakers foilow

within an Indian context.

17 A quarterly published from Bombay that focuses on the Art & Cultural Aspect of India. The third chapter highlights the work of one of the filmmaken - Suhasini Mulay - who has been active in the field since 1965. This interview highlights her recollection of her expenences and contributions to the field of docurnentary filmmaking in India.

Amongst al! the women filmrnakers that 1 interviewed, Suhasini Mulay has been active in the field for the longest time and has made a significant contribution. This chapter closely examines the issue of distribution with particular emphasis on Suhasini Mulay's project.

I attempt to understand the modes of distribution and its importance as outlined by

Annette Kuhn, E. Am Kaplan and other theonsts who have extensively discussed the significance of distribution in a western context. Finally, 1 conclude by outlining the main points drawn ftom rny research particularly focusing on the production, exhibition and distribution of documentaries in India, and 1 suggest fiture prospects for research in the field.

Part II of the thesis includes the questionnaire that was presented to the filrnmakers, followed by the transcription of the interviews with the fihakers. 1 have included a current filrnmographylvideography for each filmmaker. It appears at the end of their respective interviews. CHAPTER ONE

THE EARLY FILMS, COMMITTED DOCUMENTARY AND WOMEN'S CINEMA

The principal characteristic of Third cinema is really not so much where it is made, or even who makes it, but, rather, the ideology it espouses and the consciousness it dispIays. The Third Cinema is that cinema of the Third World which stands opposed to imperialism and class oppression in a11 their ramifications and manîfestati~ns.'~ Teshome H. Gabriel

A Brief History of Docurnentaryfilm

The first "actuality" films were made in hdia in 1898 when Sakharam

Bhatwadekar, filmed bouts of wrestling and the training of monkeys. Bhatwadekar had opened a photographie studio in Bombay around 1880.'~Until 1902, there was only a sporadic production of some travelogues, coverage of political events and news items of the national Freedom Stniggle on film. Even these meager efforts soon ceased as they were largely ignored by Exhibitors and the public. The exigencies and needs of the

Second World War brought about the revival of shoa film production. The Government sponsored the Fihn Advisory Board that was later named the Information Films of india.

This was the first organized encouragement given to the development of short films in

India. This organization produced films mainly for war publicity and propaganda. It also produced some cultural shorts on Indian music and sculpture.20

During the Second World War, there was a compulsory exhibition of these films and the spirit of nationalism rampant in the country clashed and created a certain hostility

18 Gabriel, H. Teshome, Third Cinema in the Third World. (Am Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1982) 2. 19 Erik Barnouw & S. Krishnaswamy, Indian Film, (New York and London: Columbia University Press. 1963) 6. among the public towards the organization and its films. Information Films of India was

closed down in 1946 by the Intenm National Govemment but it was soon revived under

the name of the Films Division of the Government of India in 1948. The history of the

Films Division is often credited as the launching pad of short films in India.

in Documentaries: A Historv of Non-Fiction films, Eric Barnouw States that film units become an expression of nationhood, a chronicler of achievement. In India, the

Films Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting kept the nation informed about new power plants, steel piants and dams." Most of the films produced by the Films

Division were shown in commercial theaters just before the screening of the main feature.

The Films Division held a *al monopoly on the docurnentary film in India during the first four decades of Independence, fattened by a regimen of omnipresent and compulsory (but little heeded) theatrical screenings. These films were often a target for cnticism by the viewers who got bored by this short film format. I distinctly rernember that these "shorts" were never taken seriously by the audience. The people would be talking or walking in the hall while these "shorts" were being screened. During the screening some lights in the theater would be Ieft on. When these lights went off, it was an indication that the "main" cinema was going to commence. This clearly indicated how dispassionate the audience was towards documentaries/short films. My own recollection of these films is that they had boring narratives and dealt with boring subjects which often highlighted the developments and the achievements of the governent in power.

One cornplaint was that too large a proportion of newsreel items involved activities of cabinet members. The members were featured cutting ribbons, laying cornerstones and so

20 ibid. 200-205. 2 I Erik Bamouw, Documentaries: A Histow of the Non-Fiction films (Oxford University Press, on. (No doubt this was partly a result of the readiness of ministers to cut ribbons and lay

cornerstones). hother charge was that this predilection for the activities of cabinet

members favored the party in power. The films were also cnticized for their stodginess

and sarneness of format. They were also cnticized for their tendency to ignore controversial issues."

EarZyfiirns - the sub~ectsand conlents

Browsing through the digest of distinguished Indian documentary films produced dwing the period 1946 - 1960, it is interesting to see which subjects were dealt with in the early doc~mentaries.~~Quite a nurnber of films were travelogues, describing the beautihil landscapes of India Such films ùiclude: Along the Jarnuna (1946), Ra-iasthan I flaipur) (195 l), Rajasthan II (1 95 l), (Mernories of Mewar) (1 95 l), Glimpses of Assam,

Kumaon Hills, Mahaballi~uram,Holy Himalaps, (1952-53), Darieeling, Macric of the

Mountains, The GoIden River. S~rine:Cornes to Kashmir, (1954-55). Many of these films were made on the picturesque landscapes of Kashmir and in the temples of India. Another subject which was quite popular was the life and achievernents of fkeedom fighters like

Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and other political leaders of that time. After

Independence (1947) there were many new hydro-electric projects and industrial projects which were initiated by the govemment of India. Many of these projects were documented by filrnmakers as it was probably easier to find funding for such films. Most

22 Erik Barnouw and S. Krishnaswarny, Indian Film, (New York and London:Columbia University Press, 1980) 204. 23 The entire Iist is camed in the MARG issue, (Bombay, Marg Publications:Volume XIII, no.3 June 1960) 7 1-74. The list is compiled by Jag Mohan and Pyare Shivpuri. of these films were produced by the Films Division and a few of thern were produced by independent documentary producers-

The Independents

Though the Films Division controlled most of the production of the documentaries, there were many filmmakers who preferred to survive on their own strength and produce their films by raising funds independently. Arnong them were Paul

Zils, Dr. P.V. Pathy, Fali Bilirnora, Clernent Baptista, Vijaykar, Rajbans Khanna, Durga

Khote. These figures dominated the movement throughout the 1950's and 1960's."

Except for Durga Khote al1 these filmmakers are male. The industry was clearly largely ruled and dominated by men.

According to Sanjit Narwekar, in the 1950's and 1960's there was no documentary which was longer than 22 minutes and documentary filmmalcers faced many

restriction^.^^ In the 1980's there was a small boom of independent filmmakers on the scene in India. Sanjit Nanvekar attributes this to three trends. First, a large number of feature filmmakers tumed to short filmmaking, which had become a taboo for feature filmmakers in the 1960's and 1970's. Many filrnrnakers kom different parts of India experirnented with foxm and technique and widened the subject matter of Indian films during this penod. The second trend was that longer films were in vogue which meant a possibility of bigger budgets. This lured more filmmakers (feature and many non- feature). The third discemible trend was towards investigative filmmaking - using the

24 This information was noted from the Films Division display on the 'Mistory of Short Filmmakers' at the International Film Festival held in Bombay in Febmary 1996. 2s Sanjit Nanvekar, "Films Division and the Independent Documentary," The March of the Independents, (Bombay: Films Division, 1992) 63-65. cmera to examine social and political issues. This trend soon becarne popular world

wide.

The 1970's and 1980's witnessed several political developments in India. Two

.were of major importance. One was the Emergency that was àeclared by the Indira

Gandhi government in 1975. The other was the quantum leap made by Doordarshan

(Indian Television) because of the Asiad (the Asian Games) in 1982. During the first

development, a state of Emergency was proclairned by Indira Gandhi in india on June

1975 as she iaew that she would lose the forthcoming ele~tions.~~It lasted for twenty-

one months. Throughout the Emergency leaders who opposed govemrnent po licies,

including elder dignitaries such as Jaya Prakash Narayan and Morarji Desai, were

suddenly awakened in the middle of the night and taken to prison. The Emergency had

devastating impact on the press. Both of these periods of Emergency as well as the Asian

games affected the Films Division and the Independents." During this period, the Films

Division became a public relations firm for the new government and the filrnrnakers were

instructed to glorify the Emergency, "to issue extravagant claims" and "ignore the

objecti~nable."~~

Many people protested against the Emergency. Several political groups sprung up

within and outside India in response to the repressive Emergency. Many independent

filmmakers tike Anand Patwardhan, Tapan Bose, Suhasini Mulay, and others found it

grossly offensive and unacceptable. Anand Patwardhan who had shot and completed his

-- -- ?O in June 1975, Mrs. Gandhi evoked al1 democratic rights gronted by the constitution of India because of a court ruling against her electoral practices. 27 Jag Mohan, Documentaw Films and Indian Awakening (Bombay: Films Division, 1990) 128. 28 ibid, 129. film Waves of Revolution (1974) was not able to acquire a Censor certificate for it." The

film went underground during the Emergency and was shown in private and clandestine

gatherings. Once the Emergency was lifted in March 1977, the filrnmaker obtained a

Censor's certificate for the film and was able to distribute the film more ea~ily.~'

The third trend that Sanjit Narwekar emphasizes is that of the popularization of

investigative filmmaking which was quite apparent in the work of independent

documentary filmmalsers that emerged during and after the Emergency mle in India.

Anand Patwardhan, Tapan Bose, Suhasini Mulay, Ranjan Palit, Vasudha Joshi and

Manjira Dutta developed filmmaking activities that were an extension of their social

concems. These filmmakers are a group of "committed" documentary filrnmakers. All of them have been engaged in the cause of fighting the systemic social injustice and practices that repress the oppressed class in India." Thomas Waugh has narrowed down the terni "comrnitted documentary" which I have borrowed to explain, to some degree, my understanding of the expre~sion.~'By "commitment" Thomas Waugh means two

things. First, he means a specific ideological undertaking and a declaration of solidarity

with the goal of radical socio-political transformation. Second, he refers to a specific

political positioning, a form of activism or intervention in the process of change itself. To

29 Waves of Revolution (1974) is a film documenting the Bihar movement of 1974, which was a student and peasant led mass movement that eventually became the pretext for the Gandhi government's imposition of Ernergency rule. IO Anand Patwardhan, "The GuerriIla Film, Underground and in Exile: A Critique and a Case Study of Waves of Revolution" Show Us Life: Toward a Histow and Aesthetics of the Committed Documentary, ed. Thomas Waugh, (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1988) 459. JI For more information, please look up the filmography of each of these independent filrnmakers placed at the end of their respective interviews. Al1 of them have largely spent their filmmaking careers to deal with a social or politicai theme through their documentaries. 52 Thomas Waugh, Introduction Show Us Life: Toward a Histow and Aesthetics of the Committed Documentarv. (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1988) xiv. paraphrase Marx, a committed filmmaker is content not only to interpret the world but is also engaged in changing it.

This utopian ideal is expressed through very pragmatic applications by rnost of the filmmalcers mentioned in an Indian context. For example, when Vasudha Joshi and

Ranjan Palit were making their film Voices fiom Balia~al(1989) the main purpose was to stop the building of the missile plant in Baliapal, ûrissa Both the filmmakers got involved in the issue primarily before they began to work on the film. Similar examples are seen in the work styles of filmmakers like Anand Patwardhan, Suhasini Mulay, Tapan

Bose and many others. Patwardhanfs film Bombay Our Citv (1985) is about the plight and the concems of the slum dwellers living in the city of Bombay. In the film, the director exposes the hypocrisy of the govemment that creates these slum banks to draw votes during the election and later gives orders to demolish them. Regardless of censorship policies, these independent filmmalcers constantly dig out controversial subjects and question governmental policies and developments. Thus, the cornrnitted documentary seems best descnbed as a type of political practice within the larger genre of documentary. The key issues center on the relations between makers and subjects and between makers and the social world they hope to change."

3 3 Peter Steven, Bruik of Realiw: New Canadian Documentarv film and video, (Toronto, Beween the Lines, 1993) 4 1 Distribution of the eariy films

In India, until 1934 distributors hardly existed and many producers dealt directly with exhibitors. 34 In the sound era, distribution had grown in importance and developed a pattern. It had, like production of feature films become fiagrnented. In 1948 there were

887 distributors in Lndia? For the distribution of feature films the nation was divided into £ive major temtories and the producer dealt with a different distributor for each temt~ry.'~

For documentaries the scenario was quite different. There was no main distributor. As most of the early films were hded by the Films Division, this govemment body also handled the distribution of the films. Most of the earlier films were funded either by the Films Division or by a govemment department and hence got shown to the particular clients or the specific audience they were produced for. There was not a large market for most of these films and they were stacked away in cans after a few screenings primarily due to the lack of a distribution networks or designated screening hallshheaters in India. Besides the difficulties of exhibition and censorship of non- commercial films, many foreign filmmakers found the difflculties of importing their films into India equally disco~raging.~'In the following chapters the question of distribution will be studied further and 1 will attempt to understand if the scenario has changed for the documentary filmmakers.

31 There were no distributor's during the silent era of films in India. This period lasted from 19 13 to 1934.

JS Report of the Film Enquiry Cornmittee, 1949, 1 1S. 3b Erik Barnouw and S. Krishnaswarny, indian film (Columbia University Press, 1963) 145. 37 Ibid, 191. Herstory

The history of women in documentary filmmaking in India is not new or even relatively recent. It is, however, an uncertain history, except for the documentation on

Durga Khote who was perhaps the first woman documentary filmmaker in India. She entered the field in 1952 and later set up her own production unit in 1960 called Durga

Khote Productions dong with her two daughter-in-laws as partners. She scripted and directed rnost of her work. Her film 'Pariyakta' (1958) on deserted women and her short film on ancient and tribal methods of making iron made for the Films Division are well

Imown. However, this history is largely unwritten, it is largely unknown; being herstory, it is typically left out of official accounts. But it exists nonetheless, a continuous presence that begs one to question why the talent, the diligence, and the achievements of women have not counted for more.

In India, women have been active in the field of filmmaking fiom the onset, yet not much has been written about their contribution. In this thesis, 1 do not attempt to trace the history of al1 women directors in India. Rather, 1 focus on the work of a select group of documentary filmmakers. As mentioned earlier rny goal is largely to understand their objectives and purposes of making documentary films, and how they distribute their work.

It is essential to note the importance that the 1960's women's movement has attached to documentary film. This might be because the myths underlying film are the very myths underlying our society. But these myths are much more complex than the one-dimensional nature often presurned by Hollywood or Bollywood. For these reasons, film has been a tool for women to project a different image of women, a way to raise consciousness, a means to document and study the society and its culturaI systems more closely. The following chapter studies this process in relation to three women filmmakers in India. CHAPTER TWO

FILMMAKING AND DISTRIBUTION: A CHALLENGE FOR WOMEN FILMMAKERS IN INDIA

Feminist filmmakers.... have shown it is possible to reach new audiences - in women's groups, libraries, and public schools - with films that combine persona1 statement and political analysis with expenmental and innovative means. Jum~Cut

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: Indeed it's the oniy thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

The Filmmukers: neir image and slyle of documenta~filmmaking

For this project, rny task of choosing women directors to interview was simplified by circumstance. Due to lack of resources and time I could only interview women in

Delhi, where 1 was staying with my parents, and then later in Bombay where 1 went to attend the International Film Festival for Documentav, Short and Animation Films in

Febmary 1995. In this chapter 1 outline the aims and objectives of these women who entered the field of documentary filmmaking as well as their methods of production and the modes of distribution that they adopt. 1will attempt to elaborate on the links between the persona1 lives and the political concems of the filmmakers. Given Lesage's framework of the feminist documentary as a genre, 1 will study how these filmmaken work within an Indian context.

As Claire Johnston has stated, feminist documentary filmmaking is a cinematic genre congruent with a political mo~ernent.~~In India, there were many factors that

38 Claire Johnston, Introduction, Notes on Women's Cinema, ed. Claire Johnston, (London: Society encouraged more women to join the field, including the nse and the momentum of the women's movement. Some of the main reasons that can be outlined were: the crisis of state and govemment in the 1970s going into the Emergency; the post-Emergency upsurge in favor of civil rights; the mushrooming of women's organizations in the early

1980s and the arriva1 of women's issues on the agenda. The mid-1980s were also marked by a fundamentalist advance. This fourth factor has affected the 1990s Indian state, as the political crisis has deepened with regard to state, govemment and society. Comparing the indian situation with its western counterpart one finds that in the Iate 1960s and early

1970s in the United States, women's consciousness-raising groups, reading groups, and task-oriented groups emerged fiom, and often superseded, the organizations cjf the anti- war New Left.3g

According to Julia Lesage, women who had leamed filmmaking in the antiwar movement and previously "uncornmitted" women filmmakers began to make self- consciously feminist films, and to lem filmmaking specifically in order to be able to contribute to the movement. The films that Margaret Lazarus, Renner Wunderlich, Joan

Fink and others made came out of the same ethos as the consciousness-raising groups and had the sarne goals?' Lesage hirther states that many of the first feminist documentaries used a simple format to present to audiences (presumably composed pnmarily of women) a picture of the ordinary details of women's lives - told directly by the protagonists to the

for Education in Film and Television, 1973) 2. 39 Radha Kumar, Introduction The Historv of Doina: An Illustrated Account of Movements for Women's Rights and Feminisrn in India 1800- 1990, (New Dehi: Indraprastha Press, 1993) xx-xvi

40 Julia Lesage, "The Political Aesthetics of the Ferninist Documentary Film" Issues in Feminist Film Criticism: ed. Patricia Erens, (Indiana University Press, 1990) 222. camera. This included tales of their fnistrating but sometimes successful attempts to enter

and deal with the public world of work and power."'

This trend cm be seen in most of the work by Indian women docurnentary

filrnmakers like Suhasini Mulay, Manjira Datta, Vasudha Joshi and Deepa Dhanraj who

concentrate on ferninist issues such as: women's health, literacy and female infanticide. It

is important for these directors to present certain issues that affect women from a

women's perspective. In a country like India where the majonty of women do not feel

cornfortable discussing their problems with men, women filmmakers have been able to

tap into and reflect the experiences and ordeals of women.

in India, the mid-1980s have been characterized by an onslaught on the existing

nghts of wornen through a harking back to 'tradition' and 'culture,' and to the positing of

images which emphasize women's reproductive role as the ody natural and historical one. The fundamentalist/revivalist face of dominant religious groups in kdia is directly

opposed to the radical demands and upsurges of a variety of parties. These revivalist

groups like the Bhartiya Ianata Party, and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad are suppressing any

progress the women's movement has made towards gender equality. Women's groups

such as the Janwadi Mahila Sarniti, Manushi, Kali for Women and others are tryng hard

to confiont and challenge these revivalist movements. The filmrnakers discussed in this

chapter are part of this activist sphere. The women's movement in India is one of the

many burgeoning efforts towards the reassertion of citizen's claims to participate as

equals in the political and development process. This places it in a situation of direct

confrontation with the forces of conservatism and reaction. It would be wrong, ideologically and factually, to confine al1 of these women filmmaken into a single feminist framework. The first impulse - and for many, the continuing impulse - is an exploration of women's space in a patriarchal structure as it exists in India The fact is that even today in India, there are many places and sikations where women are denied even a modicum of dignity. Child marriages are still widely prevalent and education of the girl child is often regarded as a £i-ïvolous issue. Dowry deadis are as comrnon as malaria1 deaths and the birth of a daughter is often considered a crime to be punished by infanticide." Yet again it would be wrong to state that most women filmmakers deal or choose subjects relating to women oniy. That would be unfair to the multiplicity of voices that articulate many realities within the sphere of women's documentary filmmaking in uidia However, there 1s a multi-hued feminist thread that runs through these fihs of vastly different styles and preoccupations.

This chapter will study the process and style of Jhama fiaven, Manjira Datta and

Rinki Roy who are independent documentary filrnmakers based in Delhi and Bombay. It will highlight the issues that are dealt with by the filmrnakers interviewed as well as explore the challenges they confkont to distribute their work.

The Filmrnaker and her Polifiaof Filmmaking

In the interviews 1 conducted, the women filrnrnakers stressed the importance of documentary filmmaking. Docurnentary filmmaking offers women the opportunity to cornmunicate, to enter into conversation with other women who hear, listen and respond from their own expenences and needs. In speaking and representing they have given their ideas and expenences a validity that strengthens their inner consciousness, along with a

- - 4' Times of India, Editorial, (New Deihi: October 14, 1996) 10.

28 public and political status that can, and often has, challenged established discourses of power. As Julia Lesage has pointed out

the self-conscious act of telling one's story as a woman in a politicized yet persona1 way gives.... women's conversation .....a new social force as a tool for liberati~n.~'

Most of the films made by the women interviewed demonstrate this in their work.

For example, Rinki Roy's film Chaar Diwari (Behind Closed Doors, 1990) tells the story of battered wornen who belong to the upper, middle and lower classes of Indian society.

In other words, for most of these filmmakers the personal is right at the center of their pditics. Interviews with the filmmakers also brought forth the fact that for rnost of these women, docurnentary filmmaking is often not their "money earning" profession.

Docurnentary filmmaking is taken up rnainly because of their cornmitment to address a social or political issue through this particular medium?

Rinki Roy's film Chaar Diwari, on the issue of conjugal violence, is a docurnentary that is circulated in academic circles as well as rural and urban surroundings. Much has been w-ritten against conjugal violence - a problem that transcends class, caste and creed in India and in other nations. I saw the film for the first time in a classroom of graduate film students at the Jamia Millia Institution in New Delhi.

The filmmaker was present for the screening and later led the discussion. The film has many aesthetic faults - for exarnple the sound track at times is out of sync, the picture quality is not very good and the editing is not very smooth. Yet it was very clear that the

43 Julia Lesage, "Feminist Documentary: Aesthetics and Politics." Show Us Life: Toward a Historv and Aesthetics of the Cornmitted Docurnentarv. ed. by Thomas Waugh, (Metuchen, N.Y.: Scarecrow, 1984) 250-5 1. U Here, allow me to identifY my own dispositions. 1 am comrnitted to the continued development of the documentary practice. I believe that documentary film provide one of the most powerkl means we have to represent communities to one another and to address social issues and problems. students appreciated that a docurnentary on the issue had been produced. Funding is scarce for documentaries in India so often the technical part becomes secondary. During the discussion following the screening, the students debated the issues more than the format of the fih. Here the structure of the documentary became secondary, even for these film students. Because most of the students could relate to the issue, they discussed the impact and causes of conjugal violence in their personal lives and in Indian society.

For Rinki Roy the making of Chaar Diwari aiso served a persona1 therapeutic purpose. helping her to make sense of the problems in her own life. Chaar Diwari illustrates how a very personal experience was translatai into a political and collective experience. In this film, Rinki Roy has used the simple format of narration to present a complex problem prevalent in Indian society. Here Lesage would state that biography, simplicity, trust between women filmmakers and female subjects, a linear narrative sûuchue, little self- consciousness about the flexibility of the cinematic medium - are what characterize the feminist documentaries of the 1970s in the West. But this format is also quite prevalent in lndia in the 1990s.~~

Manjira Datta's film Rishte (Relationships, 1994) examines how in spite of many social reforms and struggles girlddaughters are discriminated against in a society like

India. The film explores the death of Lali Devi who committed suicide because she bore only daughters. The film pomays how some segments of Indian society value sons over daughters and the pressures that this places on many women. The film traces the

45 Julia Lesage, "Feminist Documentary: Aesthetics and Politics." Show Us Life: Toward a Hisrory and Aesthetics of the Cornmitted Documentarv. ed. Thomas Waugh, (Metuchen, N.Y.: Srarecrow, 1984) 250-5 1. circumstances surrounding the suicide of the woman who failed to give birth to a male

child.

In my inte~ewwith Manjira Datta, she explained that after she made her film

Rishte an organization was formed in Mongolpuri in West Deihi to take up cases such as

Lali Devi's. The film motivated people to fom an organization to support wornen who

are dominated and oppressed by these societal pressures. People feel comfortable

knowing that there is a place/organization where they can go to get help. According to

Manjira Datta, when she has screened the fih spectators have walked up to her

afterwards and told her that the film made them reflect on complicity in this system. She

feels that if these films make people thuik and reflect - it is a great accomplishrnent, and

the message will have been conveyed to the audience. In such a situation, the changes are

brought about on an individual as well as a collective level.

As Jharna Jhaveri States

One of the important aims of the fihaken is to raise consciousness through theirfilms. Consciousness raising has always been seen as both a method for amiving at the tnith and a means for action and organizing.

Despite this emphasis on problems particular to women, these filmrnakers dont just make films on women. For Manjira Datta, who has directed a nurnber of

documentaries, it is important to explore a garnut of issues conceming humanity. She

believes that she does not need to be ghettoized by dealing only with women's issues in

her documentaries just because she is a woman. Manjira Datta does not agree with

categones such as "woman's cinema" as she feels that each issue effects different

cornmunities and different groups in different ways. She elaborates by giving an example

from her recent work. Though Rishte was a film about a woman, there were hardly any women in the film, and it is really about male conflict .and contradictions. It was interesting for me, because 1 have never before made a so-called woman's film, and in this film the contradictions among the male rnembers and older women rnembers of the family highlights what really is the problem with our traditional beliefs.

It is clear that the expenences of women, their preferences and choices are limited, defined and rnolded by the broader political and social setting. In turn they need to be studied and understood in such a broad context.

Upon meeting the filmmakers that 1 interviewai, it became apparent that most of them belong to a pnvileged cultural background, if not a very economically amuent me.

Active participation in social issues is a pnvilege of this class. Despite the fact that most of the women filmmakers that 1 interviewed belong to a privileged cultural background, each of them had to stniggle in different ways to enter the field of documentarty filmmaking. For example, when Jharna Jhaveri decided to enter the field, her mother was horrifieci. Jharna Jhaven was marrieci at that time, and had to convince her parents as weil as her husband and his farnily why it was important for her to make films. She recounts that this was a very difficult and tedious procedure. She remernbers that the first time that she decided to go and work in the intenors of Bihar her mother crkd as though she was going to war. This is quite a common experience of many women in India who enter a field such as documentary filmmaking. This is largely because there is no structure or fixed hours or time of work. This particular expenence is not in any way restricted to a certain class of women in India but is apparent in varied degrees across the board.

For most of these filmmakers, making a documentary allowed them to explore a subject in its entirety through a medium extremely familiar with the masses in India. For most people in uidia, an article on the issue probably would not have had the same

significance or impact as a film due to the low literacy rate in the country.

As Manjira Datta states

Film is a medium which can make you think. In documentary film, the victory is in the he.The fiimmaker can totally manipulate the audience. It can make you feel charged up, happy, angry, hstrated...A can be emotionally satisfying, intellectually uplifting.

According to Manjira Datta, film cm motivate and politicize the audience on the

subject or issue in question. It can also encourage women to articulate their experiences

and collective1y address political relationships and existing structures through the

medium of film.

The topic or the subject of the docurnentary is extremely important to al1 the

filmmakers. None of the filmmakers that 1 interviewecl have made films that are not issue based. As fiama Ihaveri emphasized, it is important to film the fact that the practice of devadasi's still exists in Southem India. When she observed the literacy movement and

its success in Bihar she was instantly drawn to record the happenings. It is a coincidence that most of her work concentrates on issues relating to women. As hama Jhaveri puts it

1 have never been able to see the women's movement in isolation of anything else that is happening around it. 1 don't see women's issues in isolation or aIien to the rest of the issues. 1 think issues of caste, cornrnunalisrn, issues of poverty, oppression are cornmon and women being the last in the whole hierarchy. My aim is to deal with women issues not because it seils rather because I am concemed about them. Most of the issues that filmmalcers deal with are integral to women. As Jharna

Jhaven has rightfblly mentioned, in a country like India, one cannot study women's issues

in isolation. Process of Production and the Sfrugglefor Funding

Once a theme has been chosen the process of production is initiated. This

"process" is explained well by Anand Patwardhan, who acts as a mentor for most filrnmakers in India. For Jharna Jhaveri, Rinki Roy, Sehjo Singh, Seemantini Dhuni,

Reena Mohan and many others in India, Anand Patwardhan has been extremely helpfül in the initial stages of their career in documentary filmmaking. He gave his equipment to them, and he helped them to build their resources and networks. In his essay, "The

Guemlla Film, Underground and in Exile..." he elaborates on the process of making a guemlla film. This process is cornmon for making documentaries on controversial topics.

Once the theme has been chosen, it is discussed. A chain reaction of discussions takes place and the original idea is repeatedly modified. Every person who cornes into contact with the idea, acts upon it and is acted upon it to one extent or the other. The consciousness process has already begun. A rough script begins to be fonned. A crew cornes together. The making of guemlla cinema is a political act and every production meeting is a political meeting. The meetings are secret or open depending on the circumstances prevailing at the time. The number of people involved increases at each succeeding stage. From the person who types the script to the one who helps carry the equipment, al1 share a degree of involvement in the real-life drama they have chosen to participate in. In extremely repressive conditions, every person involved, even at the very periphery of the filmmaking process, takes a risk, and this conscious act of nsk-tahg transforms such a person into an activist. The risk-taking does not end with the production of the film but continues, sometimes in much more acute form into the distribution process, where at times every screening of the film is a militant political act fiaught with dangerous consequences if the screening is discovered by a~thorities.~~

The quote above represents the particular experiences of a guemlla filmmaker, but the female documentary filmmaker who makes a film on a political or social issue in

46 Anand Patwardhan, 'The Guerrilla Film, Underground and in Exile: A Critique and a case study of waves of revolution' Show Us Life: Toward a Historv and Aesthetics of the Cornmitted Documentary. India faces similar ordeals. If the issue has a controversial meaning and it challenges the

govemment's noms and objectives, the filmmaker struggles fiom the beginning to the

end. During my research 1 found that most of the fiImmakers interviewed picked

controvenial subjects. For example, Jharna haveri's film on the Namada movement is anti-establishment/governmenttThis means that the film was shot while dodging the government officers or the local authorities, because of the constant fear of being Iocked up or of the equipment being confiscated. Manjira Datta's film Seeds of Plentv. Seeds of

Sorrow (1992) got her into trouble with the policy makers in charge of the food policy between the north and the south. She had to shrewdly acquire the information f?om the officers who were partially funding the project. Quite often due to the social commitment and non-compromising attitude of the filmmakers certain projects like Suhasini Mulay's fiim on the Kashmir issue and Jharna Jhaveri's film on the Narmada remain incomplete due to a lack of resources.

For most fiimmakers funding is the biggest cmstra.int. Because they are not willing to compromise and they fear the Indian Censor board, most filmmakers try to look for foreign hinding. One cm be committed to a cause or an issue but if there is no money nothing can be accomplished. Quite of a few of the filmrnakers have often worked by raising money through friends and family or on very meager budgets which often amounts to compromising on technique and quality.

As Jhama Jhaven puts it

You believe you want to do something - sometimes you don't know how and by the time you organize funds you loose focus or the drive. It can be very hstrating.

(Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1988) 447-48.

35 As a result of the Iack of fimds, the crew is not very large for a shoot. Sometimes it is just the director, an assistant and a camera-person. Most of these filrnmakers are also not professionally trained. In tum, they lem as they work. As 1 have previously mentioned, they are activists first and then filmmaken.

With the introduction of video technology things have become easier for the filmmakers. Video technology was introduced in India in the late 1980's. Before this period most of the documentaries were either shot on 16mrn or 35mm which also meant battling the non-availability of raw stock, Iaboratories, sound facilities, editing tables and, wont of all, projectors in most rural and urban areas. Editing facilities were only available in major cities like Bombay, New Deihi, Madras and Calcutta With the coming of video technology, the production costs were reduced and most filmmakers are now slowly able to buy equipment. This equipment is much lighter and more compact which helps to cut down the production costs. Editing facilities are also comparatively cheaper and more easily available. Filrnrnakers like Nilita Vachani have been able to set up editing suites and rent them out when they are not editing. This has become a lucrative side business for some filrnmakers. But the earlier fihakers constantly struggled with the non-availability of funds, huge bulky equipment, production and post-production hassles, the battle with the censor board and the strains linked to the distribution and projection of controversial documentary films.

Modes of Distribution

India lacks an infrastructure to distribute its documentaries and al1 the filmmakers raised the issue regarding the problem of distributing their work. While the commercial feature film industry controls its own distribution, documentary film remains the

exclusive domain of the State, which controls both the Filrns Division (similar to but with

far less autonomy than the National Film Board of Canada) and TV. The documentaries made for the Films Division or other government bodies are the only ones which find a channel for distribution in certain sectors. This is largely due to lack of funds and interest by government officials who are afkaid to encourage an anti-establishment film. Another source of production and distribution of documentaries dealing with India is the foreign market. If a film has been hded by foreign investors than it has a better scope for circulation. Most filmmaicers tend to look for foreign Eunding. Manjira Datta, Suhasini

Mulay and others have found foreign fûnding in the past to support their projects.

However, one of the major drawbacks of getting foreign funding is that the film must cater to a foreign audience by explaining to thern the problems or the plight of Indian society. Finally, most foreign investors want films in their language. Most of the time the interviews and the text of these documentaries is predominantly in English, thereby only satisQing the elite in India. I strongly believe that the documentaries need to be in the local/regional language and should be shown within and outside the areas where a problern or social condition exists, if they are to serve as a tool for disseminating information and encouraging discussions.

Most of the filmmakers that 1 interviewed do not see filmaking and distribution

in India as two separate things as a film is not cornpiete if it is not distibuted. Some of

the filmmakers have decided to circulate their work themselves by holding public

screenings followed by a discussion with the audience. fiama Jhaveri and Manjira Datta mentioned that they offen screened their fiend's films besides their own in different cities or villages. As fiama Ihaveri explains

1 believe that you can't make films to show in festivals or stuff like that. You have to decide why you make films. If you want to make films because you really believe that this is an instrument for social transformation - one of the tools of social transformation, then you have to reach out.

Ihama Jhaven says she has shown Anand Patwardhan's film Ram Ke Naam (1992) in different tom and villages more than fi@ to seventy times and after each screening there were discussions and debates."

It is interesting to note that without a proper distribution network, copies of films are distributed either by the filmmakers themselves or through the help of a few non- govemmental organization. It would definitely help to have a distribution system in place. As Sehjo Singh, a Delhi based filmmaker retorted with ktration when 1 asked her how she distributed her films - "How do you expect me to do everything - 1 direct, produce, raise fun&, finally 1 have to distribute my own films! Do 1 work or network?."

This question led me investigate if any of the filmmakers or anyone in the industry had thought of devoting time to build an infiastructure to distribute these documentaries. If there is no distribution system - the effort of al1 these filmmakers will remain futile.

47 Ram Ke Naarn(1992) directed by Anand Patwardhan is a film documenting the rise of Hindu Fundarnentalism in India. It portmys the ideologies propagated by the BIP and the nationalist forces and eaces the reasons which led to the dernolition of the mosque and the building of a Hindu temple on its site by Hindu hdarnentaiists on 6* December 1992. CHAPTER THREE

SUHASIM MULAY: FOCUSING ON DISTRIBUTION

It suits me to make pictures on celluloid ....mernory pictures ....that make stones more interesting and exciting. With fih, you are able to transpose these pictures of memory, imagination and reality, and make a [visual] story from them. It is, 1 think, a continuation of the oral tradition. That's how 1 see my work. -Merata Mita

Suhasini Mulay is one of the few filmmalcers who has atiempted to build a distribution network. fn this section, 1 will describe and analyze the work of Suhasini

Mulay and examine her contribution to the field of documentary film in India. My information is recorded in an extended interview with her. Amongst al1 the filmrnakers that I interviewed, Suhasini Mulay has been associated with the field of docurnentary filmmaking for the longest the. She understands the problems and obstacles in this field, and she has recently taken on the daunting task of trying to improve documentary filmmaking in India. Suhasini Mulay feels that this task of distribution has to be taken up by the filmmakers themselves. Despite various attempts and pleas made to the Ministry of Broadcasting, the Indian Docurnentary Producers Association and other groups, there has been very little change. Because Bollywood films draw such handsome revenues, the documentaries are shunted aside and little attention is paid to the fate of documentaries in

Documentary filrnmakers - especially those whose work reflects a social and political cornmitment - are not ofien asked to describe their creative process. in this chapter, I will shed light on the process that Suhasini Mulay adopts. 1 will also descnbe her intense comrnitment both to the field of documentary filmmaking, and to building a distribution network in India.

The Process of Production

Having worked with Suhasini Mulay in India, 1 realized that work never ended.

She was always very conscious of whatever was happening around her, imagining how a simple event could be translated and narrated on celluloid. From the woman who came to do the daily chores at the office and the gardener who maintained the srna11 garden to her

&ends and colleagues - Suhasini Mulay took a personal interest in people's lives. I remember an instance where her sister's servant was suffering frorn tuberculosis and she realized that no one was taking care of the situation. She took it upon herself to get him proper medical attention. Similar sensitivity and care was taken while shooting and interviewing people for her films. Suhasini Mulay is committed to knowing her subjects extremely well before filming them. As a result most people are very comfortable talking to her and narrating their experiences.

Certain significant stones often find their way into Suhasini Mulay's films. The dialogues, narration and situations presented through her docu-fictional films feel realistic, because they emerge out of retold stones. For example, in her docu-fiction film

Chitthi (The Letter, 1989), the whole idea of the film was sparked by a persona1 experience.

I lived in a place where there was no pnvacy and mail got opened - and this is very true of any Indian farnily - a letter arrives in the farnily and everybody wants to read it - because the hiiy unit in India is much tighter knit. So 1 have always written two letters - one which talks of general things and the other a persona1 one. So the idea of this film came From there. The husband wntes home two letters - one general letter for the entire farnily and the other one a persona1 one addressed to his wife. But the woman has forgotten to read and both the letters get read publicly by the village school master. The message of the film was to promote adult literacy in the villages in a simplistic manner which people could relate to.

While most of her films begin with a translation of a real event, Suhasini Mulay is also of the opinion that al1 films are subjective as they are an interpretation of one's own understanding of the situation. She feels they reflect the filmmaker's personai opinions.

My films are totally subjective. The objective-subjective argument from rny point of view, at least in fiirn ternis, is a lot of nonsense. The films are my response to a certain experience.

Gnerson once defined the documentary as "the creative interpretation of reality."8

But the question remains: What is reality? When I discussed it with Suhasini Mulay she strongly stated that

It is a myth that documentaries portray reality. The fact that you are shooting something - you have already tinkered with the image - just the physical presence of the camera has changed the situation. The only thing a documentary filmmaker has to do is to be tmthful to the subject.

Suhasini Mulay feels that just by the mere fact that the filmmaker has used a tripod and a camera to shoot, she "is tinkering with the reality." In other words, the entry of a foreign object and the people involved in the shoot changes the dynamics. People tone down and may become self-conscious by the mere presence of the camera.

This phenomenon is explored by Eileen McGarry in "Documentary realism and women's cinema." She points out that long before the filmrnakers arrive at the scene, reality itself is coded "fint in the infiastructure of the social formation (human economic

-- -- 48 Richard Dyer MacCann, A Montape of Theories, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.,1966) 44

41 practice) and secondly by the superstructure of politics and ideology."" The filrnrnaker,

then, is "not dealing with reality, but with that which has becorne the pro-dlrnic event:

that which exists and happens in front of the ~amera."'~McGarry argues that to ignore the

manner in which the dominant ideology and cinematic traditions encode the pro-filmic event is to hide the fact that reality is selected and altered by the presence of the film workers, and the demands of the equipment."

E. Ann Kaplan takes this argument a step further in her "Realist Debate in Feminist Film."

While this is true to a certain extent (obviously any screen image is the result of a great deal of selection, in terms of what footage to show, what shot to place next to which, angle and distance fkom subject, what words to use, etc.) as we'll see the docurnentarist neither has control over the referent nor is she totally controlled by signiwg practices. Paradoxically, what she does have more control over is precisely ideology. '"'

Suhasini Mulay's efforts to remain 'truthful to the subject' are practiced constantly as she keeps a permanent vigil on what is important in dealing with the subject or the issue as well as the person she is interviewing.

Kaplan tries to understand what makes a film "realistic" and suggests that such

films &se fiom (1) their use of working class people and issues (Le. this class, and its concerns, are somehow more "real" than the middle classes); (2) their focus on real-Iife

events as opposed to made-up stories; (3) their use of real locations as opposed to

artificial studio sets; and (4) their deployment of Italian neo-realism and its cinematic

49 Eileen McGany: "Documentary realism and women's cinema," Women and Film, (vol. 2. no. 7, 1982) 50. 50 ibid.

52 E. Ann Kaplan, "Realist Debate in Feminist film", Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera. (New York: Methuen, Inc., 1983) 127. techniques, such as the long take, which was assumed to prevent the meddling with actuality assumed in montage, etc?

Despite the fact that documentary and fiction films begin with different material

(fiction films with actors in a studio, and documentaries with actual people in their environment), once this material becomes a strip of film to be constructed in whatever way the author wishes, the difference evaporates.

On the Question of Fernale Aesthetics

When Silvia Bovenschen in 1976 posed the question "1s there a feminist aesthetic?" the only answer she could give was, yes and no:

Certainly there is if one is tallcing about aesthetic awareness and modes of sensory perception. Certauily not, if one is tallcing about an unusual variant of artistic production or about a painstakingly constructed theory of ad4

In response to the question of female aesthetics, Suhasini Mulay explains that she has noticed that there are differences between a male director's work versus that of a female director. She feels that in a country like India where quite often women are not cornfortable talking to men, it helps if there are more women on the crew - especially behind the camera when a woman is being interviewed. She admits that the differences of framing a shot or composing an image are probably psychological. However, based on her experience in the field she can instantly know if the filmmaker or the camera woman is fernale or not.

54 Silvia Bovenschen, "1s there a Ferninine Aesthetic?" trans. Beth Weckrnueller, New German Criticiue, ( no 10: Winter, 1977.) Suhasini Mulay elaborates by giving an example which took place during the shooting of Likh Ke De Do (1979). Tapan Bose was maneuvering the carnera when they were shooting a scene where they were trying to create the atmosphere of the loneliness of a woman after her husband has gone. Mulay broke a branch of a tree and hung the branch fkom the top of the window sill. The heconsisted of the window with a pot near the window si11 and the branch hanging from one of the corners of the window.

Suhasini Mulay felt that aesthetically the shot looked good but when Tapan Bose looked at the shot through the lens he did not understand how the branch came into the Me when the tree was so far above. Suhasini Mulay did not care about "cheating" as long as the fiame appeaied to her. She explains that often these kind of clashes used to take place between her and Tapan Bose and they could be attributed to difference of aesthetics, style or opinion between the hvo of them. Yet again, Suhasini Mulay feels that she can often tell when she looks at a hneif it has been composed by a man or a woman.

Certain techniques are very unique to Suhasini Mulay and her filmmaking style.

Having worked with her on severai productions 1 have observed and learnt fiom them.

One of these techniques involves letting people in the film talk for themselves. She is careful never to prompt or suggest a point of view during the course of the interview.

Usually the camera person is given a detailed briefing before the shoot and the carnera person knows when to start his or her camera without letting the interviewee become conscious of it. In this way, the camera rernaùls unobtrusive and the people are more at ease when they are being filmed.

Another way that Suhasini Mulay records natural actions on the part of her screen characters is to accustom them to the carnera, cameraman and sound recording devices before filming. For exarnple, on certain shoots where only women characters were shot in

a rural background, Suhasini Mulay spent a few days in the village acquainting herself

with the women prior to the unit reaching the place. This made the women cornfortable

and they could express themselves more easily once the camera unit arrived.

Thomas Waugh has documented how "collective talking groups" is a common phenornenon in Indian documentaies. People like to gather in groups in front of the camera and taik at the same time. Suhasini Mulay says that interviewing is much easier arnongst wornen's groups if women are present behind the camera. The interviewee is less intimidated, more at ease and the responses are more direct.

Frorn the written word tü the rnoving image

Adult iiteracy is a subject which Suhasini Mulay has been tackling since her first film Likh Ke De Do (Give it to Me in Wnting, 1979). To date she has made three films dealing with the subject narnely Likh Ke De Do (Give it to Me in Wnting, 1979), Kasaz

Ki Lekhi (The DocumentJ988) and Chinhi (The Letter, 1989). She plans to make at least seven or a series of films on the same issue. These three films that she has made to date al1 have a docu-fiction format. Docu-fiction is a style where the element of story is predominant and yet there is a strong message based on empincal evidence woven throughout the narrative. The story component makes it more interesting to the audience.

It also cornrnunicates an idea or a central point. For exarnple, in most of the docu-fiction films on the subject of adult literacy that Suhasini Mulay has made, instead of giving statistics and boring details about the rate of illiteracy in India, she encourages her audience to be literate through a story-line that they can relate to. It is a conscious choice that Suhasini Mulay has made to promote adult literacy through a docu-fiction format.

She strongly contends that a subject like adult literacy cannot be "taught" by giving an educational speech or displaying statistical numbers to a group of people who are illiterate. This is going to make the audience more disinterested and inattentive. Hence,

Suhasini Mulay aflirms that the docu-fiction format keeps the audience involved and hopefully provokes them towards literacy.

Suhasini Mulay has many reasons for choosing to make these films in the docu- fiction format.

1 think the reason why people in India would take a narrative format much more easily is because we are usecl to parabledstories as a fom of teaching. Even the scriptures the Mahabharata, the Rarnayana, the Koran, the Bible are in that form. We are used to that form of learning. Also with a literacy rate as low as 30% in India, 1 do not want to make a documentary giMng statistics but rather tell a story to which peuple can relate to. Also, in a country like India - literacy is a luxury accessible more to the rich. Even our textbooks have material which alienates many a class. For example, our textbooks read A is for an Apple, if you don? have access to an Apple how are you going to associate A with an Apple? So, to the rnajority of the Indians you have to tell their story and tell it simply so it cmhave an impact.

One of the main problems that Suhasini Mulay has with the format of documentaries for subjects like adult literacy, health and other similar issues is that they become too verbose. As she made clear in my interview with her "they never use the image but rather are so heavy on voice-over and commentary."

Suhasini Mulay emphasizes that a "picture speaks a thousand words" and so filmmaken should use the image. As writer and filrnrnaker Louis Marcorelles explains

Thousands of bunglen have made the word (documentary) corne to mean a deadly, routine form of filmmaking, the kind an alienated consumer society might appear to deserve - the art of talking a great deal during a film, with a cornmentary imposed from outside, in order to Say nothing and to show no thing?

Similady, Suhasini Mulay states that quite often the "commentary or voice-overs taik too much and the picture too little."

As mentioned earlier, for the three docu-fictional tales that she has scnpted to promote literacy, Suhasini Mulay has chosen simple stories that the people cm identiQ with. Quite often the ideas for story-lines may emerge fkom an incident or a story narrated/experienced by people in the villages. For example, in the story of Kagaz Ki

Lekhi a villager puts his thurnb impression over a piece of blank paper and is later harasseci by the landlord. This is a situation experienced by the majority of innocent villagen throughout rural India Landlords O ften take advantage of illiterate worken and make them sign blank sheets of paper or false documents that enslave the worker and his family for the rest of their lives.

Suhasini hlulay mermentions that one of the least powerful group in India is women; especially rural women. She remarks that in rural India - women rarely go out alone and are ofien ahid to speak. For this reason al1 her films on the issue of adult literacy target women by portraying characten such as the illiterate wives in both Likh

Ke De Do and Chitthi. In both these docu-fictional films the story draws upon the experiences of the illiterate wives who are encouraged to read and write. In Kaaaz Ki

Lekhi the wife of the poor labourer also realizes the advantages of being literate. Suhasini

Mulay has had a lot of success with these literacy films. They are al1 in Hindi - so they

- 55 Louis Marcorelles, Living Cinerna: New Directions in Contem~orarvFilmmaking(New York: Prager, 1973) 37. are accessible to a large audience in India and they have been used as far as

For Suhasini Mulay, the audience is very important. She believes that for social change to take place a constant dialogue between the filrnmaker and her intended audience is necessary.

The filmrnaker cm never be discomected at any instance. From the making of the documentary to the showing of it - it is an involvement. If you believe in the subject or the issue you will want to hear the reaction of the people and take note of what worked or did not work in the film. There have been times when 1 have shown the film 25 times in the sarne village - at the very same place!

Feedback ffom the audience is key because, in the final instance, it the audience who approve or disapprove of the work. They determine what really worked or did not work in the film. The question is: how does one get this feedback? Suhasini Mulay's strategy is that she shows the film to the rural or urban audience and studies their reaction. OAen after she has shown the film to the village audience, she re-shoots or re- edits certain portions in order to integrate suggestions or questions that emerge frorn the audience.

Suhasini Mulay strongly believes that docurnentary is one of the vehicles to create social change. She also feels that the input and dialogue with the people determines the extent of the change that takes place. For example after she and Tapan Bose completed their film on the Bhopal mishap, she went back to the city to screen the film on the streets of Bhopal. A crowd of 10,000 spectators watched the film. When she went back to the city the next time, she heard people on the streets repeating the dialogues fiom the film -

56 Likh Ke De Do - the fust of the literacy films was picked up by the UMCEF and promoted in a package for the literacy movement in neighbouring countries. what the politicians or the representatives frorn the multinational Company had said in the

film - their hollow promises and vows to improve the situation in the city. The people had

become veiy skeptical of the governments involvement and its agenda This anecdote

indicates some of the ways in which documentary films create an impact and leave lasting

impressions on the spectaton. As Suhasini Mulay stresses, in order for change to take

place - "everyone needs to participate." She is also aware of the NFB Challenge for

Change program and hopes that India will have the oppominity and the hinds to initiate

something on similar lines."

A two year sabbatical

Mer working for nearly eighteen years, Suhasini Mulay decided to take two

years off fiom active docurnentary filmmaking. Presently, she is working as Media

Advisor in CAPART where she reviews documentaries and is building a network to

distribute the films according to the provincial or regional needs of the people.s8 This has

led her to examine the systern in India and to understand how a network of documentary

n The Challenge for Change programme started by the NFB in 1970's in Canada was a comunity based project which provided film and video equipment to ordinary people upon request and which also facilitated the projects of independent filmmalcers Wing to examine the daily lives of the disenhchised, those least Iikely to fmd a voice in the mainsiream media. Many films grew out of the program, and it has ofien been cited as a mode1 not only for the documentary cinema but for video as well. Source: Ron Bumett ed. Ex~lorationsin Film Theorv, (Indiana University Press, 1991) 11 1- 112.

58 Right since the tirne of independence, the Government of India has been encouraging people's movement for developrnent. While in the early years of independence, the voluntary sector depended largely on voluntary contributions or foreign fun& through agencies like Freedom fiom Hunger Cornmittee (which Iater became People's Action for Development (India), the Government of lndia did recognize the importance of his sector by providing relief for the contributions made to voluntary agencies by individuals as well as corporate bodies. It was with the Seventh Plan that the Governent of India decided to exploit the poteutial of the voluntary sector in rural development . During this Plan, the allocation to the voluntary sector increased manifold. In order to channelize the large funk that had been earmarked for development activities through voluntary agencies and to give impetus to the movernent, the Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) was set up merging the People's Action for Development (India) (PADI) and the Council for Advancement of Rural Technology (CART) in 1986. filmmakers be established. Because of her past expenence, Suhasini Mulay understands the need for documentaries and films that can lead to discussions and generate awareness about an issue in a forma1 or infornial gathering. Yet, filmmakers have not had any mechanisms for the distribution and exhibition of their films on a large scale within India.

CAPART provides her the space to explore and initiate the process.

During the interview Suhasini Mulay stated that her major concem was that due to lack of hds, filmmakers often produced and directed documentaries which they ended up selling to foreign channels and festivals outside the country. This brought back revenues which helped the filrnmaker to hdthe next project. It is important that these films build an audience outside the natiordprovince that they are produced in, yet, it is extremely important that they are screened and distributed within the country.

The fact that Doordarshan (Indian Television) does not have a designated channel or a time slot for screening the work of the documentary fihakers is also a setback.

Filrnrnakers have voiced their pleas at several film festivals. They have also taken the matter to the Ministry. However, there actions have not been met with concrete results. In the past, award winning documentary filmmakers like Anand Patwardhan Ranjan Palit,

Vasudha loshi, Tapa. Bose, Suhasini Mulay and othen have had to fight court cases to get their films screened on ~oordarshan.'~

59 Anand Patwardhan fought for the screening of Bornbav Our Citv (1985) (about the sIums and slum dwellers of Bombay city) at the level of the Supreme Court for nearly two years after winning several awards. The film was fmally shown on Doordarshan in the 1 1 :30 p.m. slot. This is a common practice by the governent officiais who sweep every issue undemeath the carpet and have vested interest in keeping the masses ignorant. The Projecf af CAPART

The task at CAPART is still at a very prelirninary level. Suhasini Mulay has begun to build a bank of the work of docurnentary filmmakers in hdia CAPART collects the information about the film and sirnultaneously coilects the information of various non-governmental agencies/organizations involved in diverse activities. The aim is to be able to distribute documentaries as per the requirements of the particula. area and to channel them through the non-governmental agencies who would be responsible for screening their works. Nso it is important that the documentaries be translated/dubbed in regionai languages which increases the accessibility of the films. CAPART is involved in the task of dubbing the tapes according to the requirements of the cornrnunity.

As the Media Advisor at CAPART, Suhasini Mulay monitors the quality and the choice of topics/issues dealt with by the documentary filmmakers. CAPART bds the projects partially/whoIly and hence has a certain control over the projects. In the process

CAPART has become a converging point for most filmmakers where their work is viewed critically/artistically and then distributed into the community.

Taking the NFB model, whkh concentrated on the issue of comectivity between production and distribution, Suhasini Mulay is attempting to build a data bank of the work of the filmmakers and the organizations that might be interested in purchasing and distributing the films. Along the way she collects information conceming the issues that need to be explored or tackled through the medium of documentary. Eventually this mechanism will have to be decentralized and regional centers will have to be built across

India in an effort to build closer ties with the community. The task is daunting and muIti- faceted but the seed has been sown. Distribution of independent films has also been a challenge for feminist independent filrnmakers in the West. For example, as Annette Kuhn stresses the need to build audience and exhibit films in non-commercial ~ettings.~'Similarly the filrnrnaker in

India has to work and network to exhibit her work and build an audience that views the film and generates debate in her community.

Conclusion

This chapter highlights the experiences of Suhasini Mulay in the field of documentary filmmaking in India. Due to her long association with the field, Suhasini

Mulay has been able to identiQ certain problems associated with this profession, particularly the lack of a distribution system in India. While al1 the filmrnakers interviewed have indicated the need for distribution resources, she is the only one who is working on the question of the distribution of documentaries in India. This is her top prionty and she wishes to have some type of mechanism in place as soon as possible. The kind of audience, interest and market there is in india for the distribution of documentaries needs fûrther study. As Suhasini Mulay mentions, documentaries need to be circulated in educational institutions, as well as in nual and urban settings in order to generate awareness and to create spaces for debate on a collage of issues. Given the diversity India represents, the task is quite a challenge.

Many issues emerge from the analysis of Suhasini Mulay's work in the field. One of the rnost important debates that emerges is the one on making documentaries in the docu-fictional format. This format is more acceptable to the Indian audience which is

60 Annette Kuhn, Women's Pictures Ferninism and Cinema, (London: Routledge and Kegan. 1982) 191. used to seeing Bolywood films. Most of the audience is not cornfortable with the

'informational' style of documentaries. If this information is packaged in a fictional format it is more engaging. Yet this format is not feasible for filmmalcers who wish to film actual political situations as they unfold in the moment. Suhasini Mulay has been involved in making both styles of filmmaking - the fictional and the non-fictional.

The key issue is the one of distribution. If docurnentary filmrnakers have to survive, they must not oniy produce films but they must exhibit and distribute them.

Funding is scarce, yet to increase the audience the filmrnakers have to make sure that their work gets circulated. It is important to note that after 35 yean spent working in various capacities in this field, Suhasini Mulay has taken a two year sabbatical to concentrate on building a network to distribute documentaries in India. The distribution issue has always been one of the major problems and drawbacks of the existing system-

Suhasini Mulay does not have a specific mode1 for distribution but she hopes to have some kind of basic infiastructure put into place before she returns to directing documentaries. CONCLUSION

THE FUTURE OF THE IIVDIAN DOCUMENTARY FILM: STRATEGIES OF PRODUCTION, EXHIBITION, AND DISTRIBUTION IN INDIA

For a radical today, using one's skills making films might be, but does not have to be, a way of doing political work without directly facing or confronting a constituency. Two questions about one's work go a long way in keeping it from being an escape. "For Whom?" and "For What End?" Jurnr, Cut.

This study focuses on the work of four women docurnentary filmmakers in india.

I chose a small group to demonstrate the task of a few committed filmmakers and their hstration with the lack of an infiastructure for distributhg their work within the country-

The analysis of their work is followed by a transcription of inte~ewsthat 1 conducted with them. This is to demonstrate that there is not any one adequate theory that is applicable to an Indian context, rather many issues emerge and they need to be discussed and debated contextually. Theory never emerges as a pure timeless abstraction but always in relation to changing political, social and communication concerns and situations. An adequate theory on the method and style of the filrnmakers will emerge only through constant debate and study of their practices.

Part I and Part II of the thesis illustrate that the Indian docurnentary filmmaker faces several constraints in ternis of production, exhibition and distribution of her work.

The practical and political issues facing independent fiùnmakers often seem to demand more attention than the final results of their work: the films themselves. For independent filmmaken, questions of relationships are vital: of independence and accountability between filmmalcers and their subjects; of relations with audiences and of relations to the social movernent that they are part of. These questions are not only political but economic. The filmmakers interviewed for this study are primarily activists and explore a gamut of political and social issues within an Indian context.

Budgets and fündraising take up a good part of the docurnentary filrnrnaker's life in India as in the rest of the world. Most filmmakers have to rely on funding fkom the very system they oppose. Having made the films, directors in India have not had any mechanism for the distribution and exhibition of their films on a large scale. Showings have been by necessity and largely depend on the filmmakers determination to screen the films and Iead a discussion in niral or utban settings.

The history of independent cinema, like commercial cinema, is govemed by the economic relations in which the practices are embedded. One of the criticisms that emerge fiom the field is that most filmmakers who strive to raise the funds for their films, after producing and directing them are so exhausted that they end up reaching only a small and already committed audience. If they depend on governrnent or pnvate corporations for fbnding they end up paying a certain cost in compromising on form and content. For these reasons, it is essential to have a distribution network for the survival of documentaries in India - this would simpliS the task of the filmmaker. As Annette Kuhn has stated, one of the reasons that commercial distributors rarely deal with independent films is because there is not much of an audience. She emphasizes that it is important to constantly build the audience. Work with audiences might therefore involve active efforts to make films available for distribution, to ensure that they are exhibited so that debates can be generated around the issue^.^' Kuhn also stresses the need to have non-theatrical screenings for independent feminist films because a large potential audience for feminist

61 Ibid. films exists among women who rarely visit film theaters, and who would certainly not normally consider going to see films in non-commercial ~inernas-~~

Filmmakers intent

AI1 the filmmakers interviewai for this study have a definite purpose in producing and directing socially conscious docurnentaries. Most of them beiong to a privileged cultural background, yet they are politically and socially conscious individuals. They have made issue based documentaries to generate awareness and consciousness that cuts across every claçs and caste in India Their work usuaily does not generate an income, therefore most of them sustain themselves by secondary jobs. This is hstrating and effects the producer of the film. Furtberrnore, a lack of an infinistructure for distribution leads to poor circulation of their work. It is essential for filmrnakers and activists to focus on the central question of distribution and to work towards building and improving the situation in order to reach the varied audience in India. This study indicates that despite the concerns of these filmmakers on the question of distribution, they haven't been able to come up with any mode1 or structure of distribution. Except for Suhasini Mulay who has taken a two year sabbatical, most of the filrnmakers cary on producing docurnentaries with the constraints of the system.

This research also indicates that al1 the filmmakers have differences and similarities in their working styles, hence 1 cannot make many generalizations about them. The only generalization that 1make is that al1 are making documentaries because of their vested concem with injustices in India. Their goal is to portray the information to the best of their abilities. As some of the filmrnakers expressed - it is impossible to be

-- 62 Ibid. 193. objective. Most of the filmrnakers use the carnera as a witness to expenence, and through

this experience the viewer as well as the filrnmaker is forced to question hidher own beliefs and feelings.

Further Research Directions

In this study 1 have not analyzed the films of the documentary filmmalcers and I have not focused on audience perception or reception. Instead my research has been based on Wng with key documentary filmmakers about the process of making and distrïbuting their films. However, I do recognize that the filmmakers constitute a small segment of the spectaton, but 1 believe it is more essential to understand the target audience for whom the films are made. Aso, 1 have concentrated exclusively on documentaries made in India. Furthemore, 1 have only studied the contribution of a few women directors. Undoubtedly this work requires Meranalysis around film practices and methods of production and distribution. In other words, 1 have left myself many openings for Merinquiry in the future and reminded myself yet again that this was just the beginning. PART II: THE INTERVIEW WITH THE FILMMAKERS

QUESTIONNAIRE

Questions for the interview with the women docurnentaryfilm rnakers in India

1) Let me begin by asking you why you began to make documentary films? When did you begin and what were the motivating factors? 2) What is the top priority to you when making a documentary? 3) Why did you choose docurnentary film making as your medium of expression? 4) Can you describe the process you follow when putting a documentary together? Where do you start? What format do you use and is there a pahcular reason for choosing that format? 5) What issues have you dealt with through your documentaries? 6) Do you visualize your audience? Who are they? 7) In what ideal context would you like your documentaries to be viewed? 8) What do you think is the best way for audiences to leam about your documentaries? 9) Are sales important to you? How do you distribute your work? What indicates to you that your docurnentary has been successful? 10) What motivates people to see documentary films? 1 1) What motivates you to see as well as make docurnentary films? 12) What is the biggest obstacle to getting people to see your filrns? 13) What kinds of actions can be taken to facilitate viewership of documentary fiims? 14) How are feminist concerns and feminist cultural politics actually written into different types of realist films? 15) What place do documentaries occupy in relation to Bollywood cinema? Has the situation becorne any better for docurnentary film makers? THE FILMMAKERS SPEAK

Interview with Jharna Jhaveri - New Delhi, Decentber 1996 ut the filmrnakers residence

Could you tell me a little about your background? How you got into documentary filmmaking?

Jharna Jhaveri: 1 never planned to be a filmmaker. 1 never took any formal training. 1 was studying at Poona University doing Sociology. The film institute was very close to where 1 was, and 1 registered to do the Film Appreciation course where 1 saw a whole range of films - fiction and documentaries. Before this 1 had seen Bombay Our

City - 1 think in 1987, which was a very impressionable time for me. At the instihte I saw

Cuba Polish and many other films. 1 got very interested in what was happening, but I never thought 1 wanted to make films myself. 1 wanted to work with people but 1 didn't know how. Anand and many others came to give us lectures and I was greatly fascinated by documentary filmmaking. 1 think some pleasant accidents do take place. One of them was that 1 went to Bihar and was working in the interiors of Madhubani: Madhu Puran and Savechar, some of the most backward regions of the country as well. The literacy movement was on. 1 was involved with the initial process when a whole lot of women were incorporated into the literacy network This was unthinkable because this was a whole area beyond the Ganga which was not even exposed to the general public during the independence. And there, to b~gso many women out was sornething that most of us involved in the organization also thought was not possible.

You see, as a person educated in the urban areas and who had studied in the kind of environrnents you do, you have many ideas of what is happening. You want to somehow make a difference. You want to put whatever you learnt into practice. 1 wanted to work with people. Like 1 was saying, 1 was raised in an urban environment. You are always expected to know what you want. And 1 didn't know what 1 wanted. 1 knew 1 wanted to be involved with people. Since 1 was woman f?om a pnvileged class and caste and religious status, 1 felt 1 had to give back. h the cities it is very difficult to make headway. On the one hand, you have this whole cornmunalism, on the other hand, you have this whole liberalization and corruption and a whole gamut of things to battle against. How, where to go, where to begin... I remember when the Bhopal disaster happened, 1used to drearn of going to Bhopal station and just working. 1 don? corne frorn a political background at home, so 1didn't know how to do that. Well, 1was lucky to have a whole lot of expenences that Led me to going to Madhubani. It was a whole different world where al1 my concepts, al1 my education becarne nul1 and void. Al1 that 1 had learned somewhere, 1had to unleam in order to begin. Like women's equality, which one talked about amongst £kiends and in women's groups. 1 was involved with a woman's group, as well, in Ahmedabad; one realizes one can't put that to use because this was a culture where you had to address issues that concemed women without men's support because it was such an unequal kind of society. So, there one had to find newer ways to reach women. What 1 did was start tallcing about myself, start talking about how 1 began, that 1 was educated, 1 was manied, how I had problems. Of my coming to Bihar and what rny husband thought of it. How mother cned as though I was going to wu."Bihar!

Wahan ja kar kya karo gi. (What will you do over there?) It can be so tough". But when one went there and related these issues, a whole lot of women could identi& that it was not easy even for urban women to corne out. Al1 these apprehensions and doubts were real, and they were as real for somebody from outside as for them. So that was a point of meeting with women there. Issues of discrimination were even felt by them, not only within the household, but within the villages, within the cornmunities, and even outside of that, in terms of wages, in tenns of how they were treated. Not al1 of them were very conscious about al1 these issues, but everyone felt it when one taked about it.

pueto some light fluctuations we take a break and begin again ....)

Jharna Jhaveri: I was bom in Bombay and brought up in Delhi, Bombay and

Poona. 1 was ashamed that 1 had never seen a village. But 1 never could Say that. Then, fhally, 1 could go to Bihar. My parents were very temfied. My husband was also very worried, and he was skeptical. He asked - "What are you going to do?" and said that it won't make a difference. 1 wanted to go and see for myself. And there was this whole literacy rnovement. The literacy movement had taken a certain shape because the North

Indian states need a different kind of input due to the whole caste system, the backwardness, the feudal system which existed there. The positive experiences Erom the

South couldn't be translated in the North very easily. They had to make their own beginnings there. 1 was forhmate that during the same time when this whole thing was happening, I went to Madhubani. This whole CPM, CPI (mamist parties) network, the whole Ieft front - they were doing work there. So I went there with al1 my notions, quirks ...al1 the romantic ideas about a village, about working with villagers, working with women, talking and sharing ideas and stuff like that. 1 couldn't tafk about al1 the issues that 1 thought were 'women's issues'. The contradictions within the men and women were so stark that you couldn't penetrate them. You couldn't talk about women's issues unless you fint addressed those issues to men. 1 remember in one of the rallies there were about 5000 people, at which I was to give a talk and most of them were men. There was a very srna11 section of women on one side with ghunghat (the veil) from which you could see their eyes. They were very keen to know who this woman who was taking was. So, I began by saying that one should educate women so they can nui your homes better, they could bring up children better, which was something 1 didn't believe in, but if you wanted the men to be with you, you had to begin there, with what was acceptable to the whole lot. You begin by talking about health, children. 1 find this very difficult to accept, but the women still believe in the leftover plates of their husbands. It is not considered as something subordinate. So in such a society, to incorporate values of equality or talk about issues that concern a whole lot of women, in tenns of Say sanitation, having toilets and issues like that, one couldn't really talk about it immediately. So you begin like that.

After that we would go to people's houses and the men would not allow us to talk to the women. Aap hume baat kijiyé. (YOUcm talk to us). But later women started to corne out and joined in rallies. That whole process is not something you cmtalk about. You have to live it, you have to be there to see. They changed, they transformed, they became a part of a movement and it was not a political movement. What it did to me was tremendously different îrom what it did to other people there, but it was intense for everybody. Al1 along that time 1 kept on thinking how wondefil it would be to capture this, to take it to a whole lot more people. 1 would have possibly wanted somebody else to do a film. But when 1 came to Delhi or Bombay and talked about it, it was lost. You cannot understand the lives there, the kind of backwardness, the difficulties people go through. 1 wanted to capture that and 1 got the opportunity. The organization agreed to fund the film an trusted me enough. Could you describe the organization?

Jharna Jhaveri: The Bharat Gyan Vigyan Sarniti which is a Comrnunist Party

Marxist outfit. Anurag, my colleague and myself teamed up and decided to go... Anurag had aiready done other films and I had liked what he had done previously. He would essentially do the camera work and we worked on it together. It was a very different and dificult experience to actually shoot. One had 10,000 expenences, and out of that one was probably able to capture one! 1mean you had to set the camera, you had to put on the lights, you had to get the mike. All that I had Lived through was very different ftom when

I had to ask those women to taik about it. They were two completely different things, 1 had to corne to terms with al1 that, as well, which was something 1 had not thought about.

I couldn't feel passionate while 1 was working. 1could get passionate about the issue later, but while 1 was interviewing, 1wanted to get what was happening, in the most sensitive manner, disturbing as little, but it was still disturbing. It was still recreating a reality behind the camera.

So we went and made a film. As a fallout of the literacy rnovernent, a whole women's movement arose under the banner of SAMATA. Samata stood for equality, justice and peace. This was about women. Al1 those issues were taken up. Jatha's (rallies) were fomed. Women rallies. Young girls were taught to dance and sing. They would go from village to village perfonning and talking about wornen's issues. We were able to capture what they were doing, and along with that capture what was happening in the villages as well. This was what the film was originally planned as. They were moving too fast, we couldn't keep up the pace. They didn't have the time (in Bihar). You don't have electricity. You have to hire a generator, but half the time the generators don't work. The jeep would get stuck and we always feared that the Naxalites would corne and steal the equipment. We had a whole Iot of expenences like that. But it was a great learning experience.

How many of you were there?

Jharna Jhaveri: Anurag, myself and an attendant. The three of us. 1 was the person most familiar with the area Anurag finally told me, you can't make it happen when you do a ten-day shoot. When you have Rs.2,500 to pay everyday for the camera and you are &ng fiom place A to place B. These things don't happen as we imagine hem to happen. They happen at their own pace. You could only capture moments of it, and try and reflect the whole story. And one learned that it was so inadequate. If you see

An~anmanch- the film we made - it is not even a drop in the ocean, but the fact that we could even capture that much was a great leamhg expenence for us. One also realized that one felt cornmitteci to tell the women, al1 the people that we included in the film, what the film meant and where we wanted to take it. Right fiom there, one knew that the film was for them. We were very clear that this was (a) for them, (b) for Doordarshan

(Indian Television network) and (c) for everybody else who wanted to see it. We were clearly addressing them, so we wanted to tell them the whole story before we started taking the interviews. I had learnt the language and being a woman I could reach out to them. It was not so difficult, 1 guess, because they already knew me. It is like an addiction

(documentary filmmaking). You get into and you don't know where to stop.

1 think money is the biggest constraint in the kind of filmmaking one talks about.

You often lose focus because you don? know how to organize funds. But you iieed hnds because it is an expensive medium. Either you have another job from which you get a salary and you do just one film a year. Or you get hnded. Who's going to fund your film

- which are the organizztions willing to hdyou? What are the politics of those

organizations?. What is your interest? Keeping al1 these things in mind - it was quite a

learning experience for me.

Where do you get your funding?

Jharna Jhaveri: For that film, we did get our funding £iom the organization we

were working with. It was an NGO (non-governmental organization. For the other films it

has been a stniggle. We made a film on Devadasis - a short film which was made as a

pilot for a larger research film...

Can you explain devadasis?

Jbarna Jhaveri: There is this oppressive systern of dedicating young girls, of the

lower caste, especially in the Karnataka belt and Onssa belt, to the goddess Yellamma.

This has been happening forever and ever. The practice has been banned since the '701s, but it still continues. It's a whole flesh trade. Earlier the girls were dedicated to the

temple. And they finally went to the zamindars (the landlords) of the upper castes of the

village. The girls were fiom the lower caste - Yellamma is considered a lower caste

goddess. In fact, she is considered the goddess of the prostitutes. She is worshipped in al1

red light areas, which was an eye opener to me. The practice of Devadasi which still

exists in hdia - we wanted to see what the governrnent was doing about it. Do parents

willingly want to sacrifice their daughters? And what is it t?iat pushes them? 1s it just the

socio-economics or the whole religious dynamics of it? It is a mixture of al1 this.

Somewhere there is a pressure because they are of lower caste. For centuries they

believed that if they did not dedicate their girls to the goddess, then homble things wouid happen to thern. They dedicated one of their girls, who is initiated to becoming devadasis;

they cannot sleep with one man, they have to sleep with a number of men. They can

never get mmied. So, finally they either corne to Poona, that is a whole route to Bombay,

and become prostitutes in Bombay. 40-50% of prostitutes in Bombay are devadasis.

Some are still with the temple. They used to be attached to one zarnindar so they were

looked after by one man. They were with one man for a long stretch of tirne. He looked

after their security. Now it's not like that. We don? have the zamindari system as such.

Nobody has that kind of money any more. So these girls have to get hto the flesh trade.

This is a way of religiously legitimizing the entire practice of prostitution in order to get

many women to join the profession. The whole channel exists where the priests are

involved, the police are involved and so is the php. And ail of them have a nexus. So we made a film on that.

It was a very difficult thing to deal with an issue like that because however much

one reads about it, talks about it or hears about it or sees it, it is very different when you

actually go and meet them because they are real women. You eat with them and you

realize that they are as flesh and blood as you. 1 think the biggest handicap 1 feel when

making a film is that I can't be emotional about it. Because if you are emotional, you

cannot work. You cannot ask them the questions because you feel that somewhere it is

not fair to get into their lives. Somewhere you logically understand that this is for a larger

cause. It was very traumatic for me to go through the experience and to make a

film ....First, we went to an organization, we told them we wanted to shoot. They wouldn't

let us. Why should they? We were very clear that if they don't want us to take interviews

we won't. Whoever does not want to talk will not be interviewed. We only wanted them to talk to us if they were completely cornfortable. A lot of wornen did talk to us. They began by saying that they actually did not want to taik about their life. We promised the organization that we would bnng the film back, show it to the women who were involved. This was their film and we wanted to give it back to them. It is the Ieast we cm do. Other than, of course, the film behg on television so that the issue can get national coverage. The organization asked us to give them back all the footage.

Why did they not want to show it? Did they fear exploitation..

Jharna Jhaveri: The women said they don't have a choice. They were skeptical about what we could give them. How do they get out? They had many questions. Where could they go to? There is no out. And how do you combat the system? Most of them are illiterate. 95% of the devadasis are lower caste. There are two organizations that are working with hem, basically promoting awareness on AIDS and condom use. The govemment is fünding these organizations. So sorne organizations are working with thern. They have been questioning, raising issues. They simply Say if they don't exist what is going to happen to the society? The understanding is there - one cannot assume that they don? understand the reality. They know exactly what it is al1 about. But they also believe that younger girls dont have to be trapped into it. Most of them have daughters, and they al1 Say that they would not make their daughters devadasis.

We asked them if they feel that 'Yellamma will be angry if they did not sacrifice their daughters?' Very, very few believed that Yellamma has anything to do with this. It waç amazing to see that in the devadasi chawl @oor residential area) on Fraser road. where the red light area is in Bombay, there is this devadasi niwas (rest-house), where we were shooting, most of the women who were there would Say 'Hum apni ladkion ko nahin banayen gai' (we won? allow our daughters to do this). And the tmth is that they have never gone out of that area They had never seen Bombay. They knew how to get back to their villages which they possibly went to once in their lifetime. It is homble.

You can't think about it beyond a point. You feel so helpless.

You make films on women's issues. 1s this a personal choice? Please comment

Jharna Jhaveri: It is very fashionable to make films on women's issues.

Somehow, 1 have never been able to see the women's movement in isolation of anything else that has been happening around it. 1thuik issues of caste, cornmunalism, poverty and oppression are common and women are the bottom in the whole hierarchy. Iust like the dalits (lower castes) and the muslims who suffer the most in this country.

Most of these issues are intemoven anyway to some degree. Did you travel back with the devadasi fdm? Could you give me some deusabout that?

Jharna Jhaveri: I don? see filmmaking and film showing as two separate identities. Firstly, you have to really identiS why you make films. 1 would Say I make films because 1 see it as one of the ways of communicating, of reaching out. 1 still believe that supporting movements that happen elsewhere fiom my home in Delhi - and 1 have an infrastructure here - that is my contribution as much as doing a film. Film is one way.

Because it is glarnorous and you can manage to get the right contacts because you are in this business - you must use these contacts for the gain that you believe in. You cannot get driven into the glamour of it and forget what it means to you. Somewhere, one has to be very clear about what your whole politics is about. If you are clear about that then whatever you do adds to that. I don't think 1 would have anything to Say if 1 didn't do a11 that. I have to keep in touch with what's happening. It is not a question of compulsion. it's a question of that's what 1 m al1 about. I can't do that because it means a lot. 1 get al1 my strength to survive, I can't get my strength fiom Dek. It's a rotten city and 1 feei extremely alienated here. 1 how 1 have to be here. I cannot organize money in the class 1 belong to. I have to be here to do al1 that ...networking as we cal1 it, to organize money and to sustain myself. But 1 have aIways believed that filmmaking and film screening are part of the same exercise. Before I started making films, 1 had shown them and tried to sel1 them. And I have really believed in this.

PIease talk about distribution and networking.

Jharna Jhaveri: As I mentioned earlier, 1 don't see filmmaking and distribution as two separate things. 1 believe that you can't make films and show them in festivals and stuff like that. So if you want to make films because you really believe that this is one of the tools of social hansformation, then you have to be able to reach out. While we were working in Bihar, the BJP ( Bhartiya Janata Party - a hindu nationalist party) had managed to show their films nght in the interiors, on videos, al1 aromd. One saw the power of being able to do that and one knew that if they can manage to reach many people .... the lefi movement hasn't been new either. Somewhere, somehow, we've (the lefi) missed out on being able to reach out. Sornewhere we've not grown with the use of technology. In most interiors of villages, you'll have video screenings, where films are shown. They're ready to see anything, and you can make a world of difference. I have shown Ram Ke Naarn at least 50 to 70 times myself. Like that, I've shown my film couple of times. I've shown a whole lot of other films. I've shown Ali's films in

Narmada, Narmada: A Vallev Rises. If you believe that your whole social cornmitment to use this medium, either as a filmmaker or otherwise, then you have to show films. There is no way out. You have to reach people. And you have to find ways. You can always

Say , "Kaise dikhaoge? Knhan sz video laoge?" (How will we show it? Where will we get the video?) How do you organize? Al1 those are there anyway. How do you get rnoney to make a film, how do you get a subject? How do you get people? Al1 of those are also there. We managed to pave our way through al1 that. Like Anand Patwardhan, who's a mentor, and somebody can leam a hell of a lot korn him. I'm glad that he's there for us to look for. It's easy to make films on political issues. Tapan Bose makes films on political issues, but they're not political fihakers. Anand is a political filmmaker because he also is actively involved when there is a rally, where there's a dharna. His house is used as a place where al1 these things happen ... meetings happen, phones are used. So one has learned fkom somebody like Anand to use al1 the infhstructure that is available for the same cause. For something that you believe in. And you see that filmmaking cmot by itself achieve enough. You have to show films. And not only your films. I think films by a whole lot of people have to be shown. Films on a whole lot of issues. We've been involved with the whole Narmada movement now for four years or more. Anurag longer than me. Whenever we go there, we've been showing films. Made by other people. 1 think it is a collective medium. 1 mean, 1 don't feel a sense of cornpetition with other filmmalcers in that sense because your whole purpose of why you're doing it is very different. 1 think Ad's film or Nmada Diary or other films that are made ... Avinash has made a film called Narmada Puran... there's Narmada: A VaiIev

Rises ... there is the other one by Shashi and Ratna, the older film. Al1 these films on

Narmada together are a staternent. Do you think they really do cause social change? What is the response you get?

Jharna Jhaveri: The north of Bihar and south of Bihar are completely different.

The south of Bihar is a tribal area. The north of Bihar is a non-tribal area. One is a very caste ndden, very, very feudal society. The other is an oppressed, exploited society.

Baiamore is a place south of Bihar. Some organization had organized a screening of our filrn, Anganmanch, there. There was a Muslim Basti there and Muslim wornen had corne to see the filrn. They were very excited and they felt empowered by seeing it. They didn't have critical questions. They had something to add to it, they felt it was theirs. It was a reflection of what they wanted to Say. You could feel it sitting there in the audience. All they were saying was "We want our men to see it." We organized another screening, the day after, and men and women were there. We went to their Bastis and showed it there. The men were skeptical. They said its nice but it's fiction. It doesn't happen like this. Then they argued. 1 didn't even need to speak. They (the women) said how cm it be fiction? How can you have so many women waWg on the streets of

Madhubani as fiction? You know, they had this whole logic. And what was amazing is how they fought with the men, that if it can happen in Madhubani, it can happen here. 1 think that was what our films should do.

1 think Ram Ke Naam has initiated a whole series of debates and discussions. 1 think one of the most significant exarnples of what a film can do is the death of La1 Das thz pnest who was murdered after the making of the film... it's a horrible example to give ... He was taking the film himself to the villages to wherever he was and showing it.

He believed that the film can make a difference. The point is how do we do it? How do we systernatically rnake sure that we are able to reach out? 1 have this theory. that, individually, me and Anurag or my organization, lanarnadhium, know about 500 NGOs al1 over the country. Out of 500, let's assume 150 could buy. Like Rarn Ke Naarn, we made sure... I sold about 250 tapes myself. 1 got in touch with Bharat Gyan Vigyan

Sarniti, CPI, CPM and organizations like this and they have ... each cassette has been shown at least 15 to 20 times to an audience of Say 10-50-100 at least. This is very little.

Thousands of copies of the BJP Jain video have been thrown al1 over the country. We cannot exactly compete with them because they have the whole inf?aistmcture. They have the money and everything. But don't we have the people? I mean to make a copy of a 3 hour tape, it would cost 150 Rupees. That's not a hell of a lot of money. Chomsky talks about this in Manufacturing Consent, It's not a question of organizing rnoney, it's a question of intention. What is really sad is that there are not many filmmakers or for that matter many professionals, many people who want to do this because they believe in changing the world for the beder. And this changing the world for the better is not only for others. It's for yourself. I mean do we feel safe in this city? Do we feel nice breathing the kind of air we breath. I mean do we feel nice that we don't have choices?

Iust because we are pnvileged ... We are unsure of al1 Our htures. It's not a question of just doing this for somebody else. 1 don't think I do any of this because of somebody else. It's a cornpletely selfish thing for me. I want a better world because 1 feel horrible to live in a world like this. Everyday you keep reading about murder in Delhi. I believe 1 live in a safe world 1 have al1 rny securities and my finances organized, so I feel that 1 am safe. It's an illusion, no? And you can't change this order by just changing your own reality. It's a whole system that is unequal. You have to start somewhere. Film is one way of doing it. 1 don't have the courage to do the kind of activism a whole lot of people cm do. 1 don? have the energy or the courage or my circurnstance or my own limitations don't allow me to be able to go to the villages and work for it. If 1 had to put it between i and 10, this (what I do) is minus and that (pure activism) is plus 10.

Knowing that 1 cmdo this, 1have to do it as honestly, as sincerely and as hurnbly as I can and not lose the focus. You can want to be popular and famous, part of the whole women's, whatever ... You can carve a space like that. But that's not the whole game.

Somewhere, 1 think we are countering that whole propaganda of making heroes out of human beings; on the other hand, most of us are ninning somewhere towards that. That's what one sees and that's the only alienating part that one feels with CO-filrnmakers. There are very few who feel that sense of cornmitment or are clear that, "OK I'm doing it for money." Fine. OK. I'm going to make films on women because that's what's selling this year, because the UN has an agenda on women or this year it is ADS or the next year it's going to be whatever else ... but then you're doing it for that. You are part of the industry and you can sel1 like everything else. But be clear about that. Don't try to promote yourself under the banner of doing it for people. People are so angry with filmmakers like that. When 1 go back to those areas, they don? want to give you inte~ews. They Say, "Woh ayethe. BoIa tha zaroor wapis ayenge. Woh phir kabhi nahin aye. " (They carne. They said they would corne back. They never carne back, they never showed the film). They also misused the footage. You have to have some basic ethics. So if you do have that kind of a clarity then 1 don? see distributiodscreening of films as a major problem. 1 enjoy showing my films. Mine or others. As much as making them. It delights me to sit with an audience and watch Rarn Ke Naarn even now. I love it when they respond to al1 those things.

And you aiways get into a discussion afterwards.

Jharna Jhaveri: Yes of course. There's aiso the other side. Et's not easy to make films like these because you don? get funding for them. Our Nannada film kept on dragging because we didn't get money. Various organizations said it's too sensitive, too political an issue. So we just had to keep waiting and editing is very expensive. We wanted to do a good job, so we becarne slightly ambitious. We shot something like 180 hours of footage. It was so difficult to think of editing it. We just kept working and working on it.

That's what you're working on now.

Jharna Jhaveri: Yes. That's what we've been doing for four years. You feel like it's never going to be over. 1 have, in the meantirne, tried to survive and go on and do srnaller things. Recently, we were at the Mussoorie Academy, the IAS Academy (Indian

Administrative Services Academy). There is a person called Harish Mathur who is a very nice bureaucrat. Harish was very keen that we go there and do a training prograrn with the probationers. We were, of course, very skeptical. Why do you need to show bureaucrats how to make films? They'll have another weapon to fight you, you know. We went with al1 that. Finally, 1 think it was a very nice learning expenence for both. We did two films with them. They did the camera and everything, structure and everything. There were two groups. One with Anurag and one with me. One did a film on the nksha puilers. There are these hand riksha pullers in Mussoorie... The other was on the Tibetan refugee children. We acted as those who are not in the governrnent or those who are talking fiom the people's point of view and they acted as the govemment. These are not given absolutes or in isolation. They were the young people from the same society which we are al1 a part of. They need as much as we do to get sensitized to various issues. This whole process happened, and 1 thought that in itself was a part of this whole reaching out.

Anurag has been taking training workshops with rural people, boys and girls, training them how to make films, how to use the video, things like that. So we believe that there are various segments', making films is one, distribution is one, training is another, going and showing a film and having a screening is another, showing it in a festival is yet another, because somewhere you need a legitimacy so you can get more money to make your next film. Or you show it in a reputed institute like ISC, where policy makers and such corne. And we have this whole institute which is always ready to watch this, sornewhere, to Say we are a part of it. So why not use that for an advantage? If one is clear as to what one wants to do with it even if it's one small &op, one can use it very effectively.

Do you intend to make fiction? Bollywood films? Comment.

Jharna Jhaveri: NO, 1don't know why. It's never fascinated me. I think I get ail of rny energy from people. It's very clear. And to capture that is a whole different exercise. To capture what is really happening in history is very different from recreating it. 1 didn't comment yesterday on Bombay. A feature film like Bombav is technically very well done, but politically completely wrong, completely on the other side. So subtly done, so beautifully done that you can't even know that it's done. Ordinarily you wouldn't know where to find a problem with it. It's the most disturbing film, as far as I'm concemed. If 1had my way, 1 would ban it, because it's going to keep a history. 50 years fiom now, what people are going to remember as the riots is, what they see as Bombay

What has really happened is not what is shown in Bombay. You have a Muslim rnob going into a Hindu household. You have a close up of the Hindu household with the

Hindu symbol written on it. You have Muslims hitting the Hindus. You can see the swords very clearly with the topi (the hats), back-shot, slashing, which is also a mid-dose shot. When you have the Hindus attacking, you have long shots. You'll only have lathis

(sticks) or you'll have the tnshul, but it's a long shot or they're going in the aarti @rayer).

Subtle, subtle, subtle things. We don't always notice things like that. But they can be extremely problematic.

Mani Ratnam was disgusted. Bal Thackeray edited the films in a lot of ways.

Jùarna Jhaveri: Bombav is a leap into his politics, what he wants to Say about the whole fascist nght wing political statement that it makes. It's so well done. Like

Hitler's propaganda films. You couldn't question it. This is even more subtle because there is not a Hitler, somewhere. The whole BJP, the whole right wing is not so overt as the fascist movement was. For common people or people who are even sensitive, they cannot see these shades. It's so weIl done ... It's OK to make Manmohan Desai blockbusters. I don't have a problem with Amar Akbar Anthonv. 1 don't have a problem with Mr. Natwarlal. I don't have a problem with Raiu Ban Gaya Gentleman. It's overt.

The good guy and the bad guy are overt and it's very clear, but a film like Bombay is going to be a historical document of what happened. It's so slick. If you see the riot sequence, it's like a documentary. He's recreated riots and he's actually shot it like a documentary. He's not pre-planned the shoot. It's done through video camera. But you can make out that it's done like that, with that kind of mobility. So I'm saying that these are two different genres of filmmaking: fiction and docurnentary - 1 think 1 have my statement to make in not recreating history, but trying to capture what is happening with rny understanding, with my sensitivities. And if one can reach to as much through that, one should try and do it. And it's not like one against the other. They have two different roles. 1 don? agree with Prakash Jha's logic. 1 find it extremely disturbing when ... 1 was never too fascinated by his films... where one reached a very large audience where one had a message in rnind and stuff like that. It's, of course, wonderful to be able to reach a large audience. But that doesn't mean you make anything to reach a iarge audience.

What you want to Say and why you want to Say it is the rnost important thing.

FilmographyNideography:

{Jharna Jhaveri)

1991: Angan Manch: A fiim on women and literacy in Bihar.

1992: Devadasi: A 30 minute docurnentary on the exploitative practice of religious sanction to prostitution. Interview with Rinki Roy Bhattacharya - Bombay, January 1996 nt her residence

How did you get into this field of documentary film making?

Rinki Roy: I think it was not a very conscious choice to be a documentary fxlrnmaker. 1 must confess that. 1 wanted to take the issue of domestic violence on a wider scale. I felt that writing about it was not enough. I'd written about it for about 10 years, you know, agitated about it through groups, individually, given testimonials of my own Me. But it came to a point where I felt 1 wanted to demystify the issue and that was possible only through this medium, where 1 thought that we could use the documentary foxmat and if women were willing to corne fonvard, talk about what had happened and fominately for me, we located a couple of women who were not unwilling to talk about it before the camera. And that's how the whole thing started. This was 1988. Of course, getting hdswas again a very big struggle.

Why the documentary format?

Rinki Roy: 1 thought this was a subject which would not have the kind senousness and impact through any kind of fiction. It had to be non-fiction. I could see that clearly. So that's why it had to be documentary.

Why was this particular subject of interest to you?

Rinki Roy: Because I was dealing with this issue on a day to day basis with my own situation. I was working with a fairly well known autonomous women's group here, in Bombay, called Nari Kendra or Women's Center. Every time 1 went, there were women who were victims of violence. What else could we do except, giving our own life situations, interviews. The best thing 1 thought would be to make a documentary and keep it. Document the whole thing through a film process and show it wherever we could have viewings.

Why does one make documentaries? What can one achieve through this?

Rinki Roy: My persona1 view is that as a documentary filmmaker, I'm much fieer. I don? have those constraints that other people working in the big cinema industry have to face on their creative freedom. I could choose whatever subject 1 want. There's no pressure on me to Say, Okay add this kind of Song or dance or have a star cast. Once you begin to compromise, then there's no end to it. So 1 feel that documentary filmmakers don? have to compromise on the creative side. We have to compromise on other aspects like the funding, where it cornes from. For instance, when we made Chaar

~iwari~(Behind Closed Doors), we went around loohg for funders in a lot of corporate sections and they were ... it's such a grim subject, there were no funds. So, that's a constraint to convince people that, yes, this subject deserves to be fiimed or deserves to be documented. When 1 did Chaar Diwari, nobody was going to tell me that you have to have a women who looks good or who is attractive or somebody who is watchable. 1 think that's where 1 find 1 am extremely fortunate.

What kind of issues would you deal with?

Rinki Roy: 1am involved with any issues which are dealing with the environment or women's statu, their powerlessness, their vulnerability. Despite various amendments and laws in this country, women remain where they are. At a great cost, they have achieved what ever they have. So success stories, failure stories conceming

Chaar Diwari (Behind Closed Doors) is a documentary on the issue of conjugal violence directed by Rinki Roy Bhattacharya and Gulan Kriplani. real women. Al1 these aspects of women's lives and which oppress women interest me very much.

Where do you get your funding?

Rinki Roy: 1 have made three films and al1 three have been funded by the goverment.

Which part of the government?

Rinki Roy: Well, Department of Women and Child is one and then Films

Division is second.

How does one go about doing it?

Rinki Roy: Initially, it was a big stniggle. You see, 1had no track record. 1 was a journalist. Of course, 1 was quite well known as a journalist, and they knew that 1 was involved with women's organizations. So that was a good thing. Now, at least 1 have three films to show. So I hope it's not going to be that difficult. One needs to establish oneself. htially, it is a big stniggle to make one's first film. That 1 think will be less now, but of course it's going to be a struggle to get huids anyway.

How do you manage to distribute your füms?

Rinki Roy: That is another question, you know, for documentaries which are funded by the government, they have their own distribution network, which is a good thing. For instance, this film that I've made, they're going to release it in al1 the theaters.

So there 1 don't have to work hard at all. For the other two, the Department of Women and Child, they have a tie up with Doordarshan, so they get a slot, which is a horrible slot. It's like killing the film. Mine was show at 11 o'clock in the night without any publicity. That was the first screening. 1 insisted on a second screening. Which film was this?

Rinki Roy: Chaar Diwari. They don? publicize it. They could avail of the press.

So these films just die. You just show it at any time. I've shown my films at colleges, at

schools, British Council ... For the first time, when 1 was in London last July with a

small scholarship, I could show it in a proper theater. It was like a release. So that was a

fantastic expenence. In Manchester. I felt that one could show it in theaters', if one had

the support, it would be very well received indeed.

At the festival, it was film vs. video. In the larger context, it's commercial film vs.

documentary. Comment?

Rinki Roy: We don't even have that position. There's no competition at all.

Unfomuiately, nobody considers documentary films as a valid genre in this country. The other side is that 1 have been to fantastic documentary fihn festivals ail over the world.

Fortunately. I've been twice invited to be on a jury, so 1 could see an entire spechum, a

whole universe which is outside this country. And there are so many festivals which I've

got to know. There are documentaries, videos, everything.

As a journalist, which newspaper or group did you work with?

Rinki Roy: 1 was a freelancer, but 1 had columns in Times of India, Economic

Times, Indian Exmess, Midda~,al1 the leading papers.

It seems necessary to do other work to sustain yourself while making films. What

do you do?

Rinki Roy: 1 don't have any jobs. 1 don't even have a single job. So, for me,

documentary is the only thing 1 do now. Occasionally, 1 do write, but that has become

something very rare. 1 never write for remuneration. So, there's no other job I'm holding. I feel that if I could have a job where I was not compromising, I would take it. So far I have not.

With Chaar Diwari, did you have a particular audience in mind?

Rinki Roy: No

Just to make it for a general audience, to make them aware. What was your main intention behind that film?

Rinki Roy: It was mainly to bring this issue into public debate, to show it at forums, wherever we could. We wanted to reduce that whole thing that what is political is personal, what is personal is political. We really wanted to show it to as many people as possible, a cross section of people, not necessarily only women.

The personal is political. Could you expand on that?

Rinki Roy: That's what 1 understood with my own life. 1'11 give you one instance.

I used to work as a volunteer at the women's center. Those days, 1 was having trernendous trouble. I hadn't even started my divorce proceedings. So one good place to go and ventilate my anxiety was at the women's center where a lot of other victims used to corne. We had a whole feminist network there. One day 1 met a woman who is very well known, a renowned scholar narned Maria Mies. She was the woman who started the fint refuge in Germany, in Cologne. She was just tahgabout the kind of issues they've dealt with and the situations they are recurrently having to deal with. She talked about a very well known person whose wife had come to the refuge. She was covered in bruises.

She was trying to escape the violence at home. Maria Mies and al1 of them decided that this man is such a well known person, he's got such a fantastic public image that they have to do something. It's not enough just to support this woman; they have to somehow make it public that in his private life he's a wife beater. So, overnight they had posters and all, giving his name. There was no anonymity. It was ail out in the public. And I thought... that's fantastic. You know it started making me think, my husband's a very well known man, so why don't 1 do something like that? Before 1 hew, the editor of

Manushi was here in town. Al1 these women at the center became my fkiends. We worked very closely. The women fkom whose house the shelter was running, Sona Shukla,... she runs a feminist library... she was very concemed personally about rny situation. She was very af?aid I might be fatally wounded. It was very bad at that time. So she told Madhu that this is what is happening to Rinki and Madhu called me over and we did an interview which lasted from 8 to 10 hours on the tape recorder. 1 was an exhaustive interview on what had happened so far to me and how 1 was coping and what were my own perceptions about rny life. Madhu took it back. That was in 1983. She was completely shocked about what was happening. She would put the tape recorder off. She just couldn't cope with what she was hearing. Well she took it back and we corresponded and she sent me the whole transcript. She told me... she said Rinki, it's your decision whether you want it out in press or you don't want it out. So 1read it and reread it and edited the whole thing. I said fine.. I feel you should publish it. Again she wrote back ... she said,

Are you sure because once it cornes out in print, you've got to face the consequences.

Nobody has talked like this in the press. So 1 toid her, "No, I'm ready for the consequences. 1 don? mind. 1 think 1 would like it to corne out." 1 was getting over this whole isolation through talking and then 1 found tremendous support in the center. But of course, as Madhu had warned me, the moment this thing came out in press, there was a huge furor. There were pro-camps. There were people who were saying, "How could she do this? How could she bring out this.." or comrnonly as they would Say, wash her dirty

Iinen in public and al1 this kind of nonsense. But 1 got very good feedback fiom a lot of people whom 1 respect; Satyajit Ray was one person for whom I left a copy of Manushi, and 1 got a fantastic letter korn him saying that he had not read anything like this in

Indian journalism. It sort of legitimized my whole struggle, so that's how 1 connected. 1 thought that this is what one has to do even in documentary. Women find the connections. I'm not saying that the women we interviewed in Chaar Diwari are politically aware in that sense, except one of them who had worked with the center. But you see, women watching the film or anyone watching the film would make the connections. That's how it happens. It sets off a whole process.

When 1 saw your fidm with the Jamia students, very few people actually discussed the film. Everybody focused on the issue. And thnt is a total success.

Rinki Roy: Yeah! 1 felt very happy showing it to the Jarnia students because 1 found they were an evolved audience.

1 had a discussion with some students afterwards and 1 found the opposite. 1 was a bit sad because 1 felt it was to an already converted audience. This was a very pretentious environment, politically correct.

Rinki Roy: This question keeps corning back wherever 1show it. Usually the first question told me is "Wornen also do this". You haven't shown enough men. What about the men? So my question to them is ''what kind of men do you want to see in this film?"

So they Say, " what about the husbands." Well, our choice is, we respected the choice of the women, firstly. And I also told them, 1 would've been very happy if we could interview one of the men, one of the husbands and even if they had said we haven't done it, that would have been quite transparent ... the way they would Say it. Because 1 know how abusive men tallc, and how they defend themselves. 1 know that whole psychology.

One of them said if you want to interview my husband, I'm not going to be there. So what was our choice? It was more important for us to talk to victirns who had gone through this experience. 1 said what's the whole thing of having and honorary man there?

What was he going to represent? He wasn't going to represent anything so I said there's no debate.

1s it a problem to get audiences for documentary films?

Rinki Roy: Yeah, of course it's a problem. Documentaries are almost invisible.

Where are you going to show? 1have also been involved with the film society rnovement f?om my student days. That was a good forum to show documentaries. But the film society movernent is ahost dead in this country. We had to shut down the 1st film society I was involved with, a Bandra based one called Film Suburban, because there were no places we could show our films. In a fih society, you can easily show documentaries. That is a big problem; we can never release it theatrically. What is the alternative? 1 think the onIy alternatives are pro-forums or maybe festivals.

What forums?

Rinki Roy: Any kind of forum. Let's Say there's an AIDS forum. You can show a documentary on AIDS. Or if there's a conference on violence. Recently, Chaar Diwari was shown at a conference at the National Center where they had a three day convention on violence. So Mallika Sarabhai did a special dance on violence and Anand's film, my film and another film were shown as part of this whole thing. So we do get exposure like that which is occasional, but we have to watch out for ... or maybe create situations ... Why haven't filmmakers got together to set up a place where these films could be shown?

Rinki Roy: Well that's what the minister of culture promised us at the festival.

This has been going on for the past eight years.

Rinki Roy: But the only theater we could show at is shut down now. AIR theater, that's Al1 India Radio theater. Of course, there are the mini theaters. 1 have been in so many rnovements. 1 used to get together al1 the top filmmakers in India, particularly

Bombay based, and we used to take these issues to the film finance or NFDC that would help to show our fihs. 1 used to be the real cheerleader, cal1 meetings, and initially it was fine when people were less busy. Filmmaken are so busy ûying to get funding, get their films done.

It's a one person show.

Rinki Roy: That's right. That's the whole thing. So where do we have time to organize? We have this Forum for Better Cinema, which is an informal fom. So we may activate it. That may be one of the things. But then it's a lot of energy. There was a discussion yesterday that the women's movement is getting tired. But we need to infuse it with a fot of enthusiasm. One can do that also.

Maybe advertising or getting sponsors for festivals.

Rinki Roy: No, 1 don? think 1 would agree with that. 1 think it should not be taken away. They can't have the controls. 1 would not want anyone to have the control of the festival. Whatever it is, we can deal with the govemment, on our own level. Whether we are happy with the way they function or not. We still have some way we cm at least have some control in our hands, right now as it is. They threaten to take the big festival away, the Delhi festival. I've just signed a petition saying that we don't want it to go to the industry. Then we've lost it. Then we'll have to think of having some other festival.

Then we'll be completely out. We can't compete with big money. 1mean, the amount of money and infiastructure they have is enormous. We don't exist to them. Documentary filmwallas (wallas: makers) or filmwallas. They have this conternpt for art filmwallas.

It's a bad word. And they 're very threatened by this whole thing.

As a child, they would show short films before feature films.

Rinki Roy: Those were only Films Division films.

Promotional and farcical propaganda about the great India? Yet at the same tirne, they were shown in the theater.

Rinki Roy: If you make a good film for the FD and you get that slot, then that's fantastic. Unfominately, you cannot work and make a good film for FD if you have to do it as a part of the whole organization. So these are the contradictions. 1 don't think people would corne just for documentaries if there were dots for that in the theater.

People are thinking that maybe Doordarshan will give slots.

Fünki Roy: Or something like a discovery channel, you know, where they show only documentaries. Something like that for India's documentaries. 1 think that would be fantastic. I think that would be the only option we would have probably getting it on some channel. Filmography and Videography: (Rin ki Roy)

1990: Char Diwari (Behind Closed Doors): A 45 min. video documentary on the issue of conjugal violence.

1992: Ummidien IHo~ekA video documentary focusing on violence against women.

1993: Janani: A 5 min. short documentary celebrating motherhood. Interview with Manjira Dutta - New Delhi. January 1996 at her residence

How did you get into the field of documentary filmmaking? Please elaborate on your background. Did anythingjanyone influence you to be drawn to this field?

Manjira Datta: Originally 1 was a photographer, it was only when 1came to this country and did not get a job that 1 got into video.

My background begins very strangely - abroad to do accountancy and, I think, finding that auditing, which is a part of accountancy, was changing my whole character.

(laughs) In Edinburgh, and then in London, 1 think that became a major concem for me how an individual can change because of one's profession. So, at that point 1decided that

1 would have to leave to do something else. An uncle of mine gave me one of these

Kodak Instarnatics for a Christmas present, and a couple of rolls of film. 1 took one roll of film and shot it to show the shadow and light playhg in a one room house. 1 had not done photography before that. Another roll 1 shot in the extenors and showed to a fiiend of mine with whom 1 was going out and to my uncle. This fnend told me that 1 should get into a training college and get trained to do photography. Maybe this is what you would like to do - he said. 1 thought 1 had no skills and felt nobody would take me. But I just applied to a lot of colleges. And wherever 1 went 1 was exempt fiom the interviews and that was by showing these di- post-card size photographs. People were coming with huge portfolios and all. I was given a scholarship. I wanted to get into filmmaking, 1 thought 1 wanted to go into cinematography. For the cinematography course I was too late - everything had been allotted. So they told me that 1 couldn't do it that year, I would have to lose another year. For me, that was impossible as I was on my own in England and money was a problem etc ... So, Ealing college, London college, North London Polytechnic offered me different things than what 1 wanted to do. None of them could give me what I wanted as 1was late in applying for the admission. When I went to Ealing college, the principal who was a part of the interview cornmittee, took me aside and told me that I had great promise and that I needn't sit through al1 the courses - he told me that they were offering me photography but it was a very flexible course. He said I could go fiom still photography to video .... depending on how 1 could raise the fhds. This was in

1972-73. So that's how 1went in fiom zero.

1 did some college tearn work where I began to explore. 1 did rnostly still photography there. From third year onwards, 1 was working outside. Students were allowed to work as professionals outside. And then there were some video exercises that 1 wanted to get familiar with.

I really enjoyed working with small cameras - they give you so much more mobility. One of the major setbacks for me has been rny eye problem, 1 have very poor eyesight - 1 couldn't do much cinematography, but 1always felt that 1can hrne an image much better than a cameraman, that ability or talent is inside me.

In tenns of influence, I always was very conscious and aware of rny background and my surroundings. From a very early age, 1 knew that the girl who worked for my parents to look after me (the rnaid) was probably the same age as me but did not have the same benefits or any rights. 1 never understood why she was not allowed to do the things

1 did. Later, of course, I got more and more aware of the discriminations, the class and caste system in India, and wanted to fight all that.

Film is a medium which can make you think. In documentary film, the victory is in the me.The filmrnaker can totally manipulate the audience. It can make you feel charged up, happy, angry, hstrated..... it can be emotionally satisfying, intellectually up lifting.

Which was your first film? How did you fund it and distribute it?

Manjira Datta: Raaste Band Hai Sub (Al1 Roads Closed) was my first film. 1 made this film in 1986. It was done with hardly any budget .... 1used a bolex canera. The film focused on bonded labor and the prostitution of women in the Gawhal region of

India. My second film was Sacrifice of BabulaI Bhuiva (1988) which 1 made with the help of a fiends parents. My Wend got a loan fkom his parents and got Rs.50,000 and we started work on the film. Later the film also got partial fùnding fiom German TV and

Bntain's Channel Four. Later, my first film Raaste ... was purchased by the German TV

Company. 1 have been fortunate that the money somehow keeps corning in without too much begging or marketing or lobbying. 1 am a hopeless PR person. 1 can never raise money for anythng! 1 can only Say 1 have been lucky that my films have constantly got fimding and have been widely distributed - maybe 1 owe that to the subjects and issues that they tackle.

Quite a few of my films have been shown a11 over the world, but 1 have had the most problems showing my films in India. 1 often travel with my films and have taken them to remote areas of Orissa, Kerala, Bihar ..... but it is always a struggle to show them there. There have been times when no one shows up for the screening because the local organizers were not in agreement with the contents of a film - it did not show the local governent in a good light. This is one major reason why 1 feel that distribution of films is still at a very primitive level, and it still remains there because even activists are unaware that films will help activism. Would it be correct to Say that you have been funded largely by foreign funders/organizations rather than any Indian bodies?

Manjira Datta: My first film was largely through personal funding and after that rnost of my films have been funded by the BK, Channel Four, Geman TV. Yes, 1 have been fortunate that 1 got a lot of funding f?om outside and usualIy it has come to me rather than me always tracking them down. Maybe, 1 have just been fortunate.

1 was once asked by one interviewer why 1 always look for foreign funding. Well to tell the tmth the local fimders don? give much support. And if they do they want to fiddle with each word. Corruption in the Indian society is so widespread and is at every step. 1 remember once, 1 made an offer to Doordarshan (Indian TV) for a film called

Ringmastem for a Current Mâirs program. 1 made the film about the Hawala transition where most of the politicians were caught and exposed for taking huge bribes and hoarding money. When 1 began work on the film, Doordarshan said it would take care of the consequences and 1 optimistically believed that the systern had finally changed. Once the film was finished, they gave me air time and fixed a date and all. But the film did not get shown that day. I storrned in their office demanding an explanation - they said - 'You want us politicians to lose oujobs for life? Everyone is being pomayed in such bad light in the film.' Finally, a watered down version was shown to the public. The tmth was never shown the film was tampered with and 1was blacklisted! After such an experience, who wants to work as a slave to the politicians wishes and whims?

So what you are saying is that what gets shown is what they can easily digest?

Manjira Datta: Of course. Look at the time slots most of the fihakers are allotted who are dealing with issues showing the government or the politicians in a bad light. They exploit and squeeze out life fiom anyone who ever questions them or is a threat to their power.

The documentary film person in India has to be an al1 rounder - it seems it is a one- person show. Could you comment on that?

Manjira Datta: That is absolutely right. 1 am always working on budgets, on negotiating, on distribution, working with an accountant who knows nothing about films, meeting with financiers, with TV companies - which is absolutely overwhelming and

£kightening. My background in accountancy does help at times .... but 1 don't negotiate beyond a certain point. 1 am not a good negotiator. 1 think that's been a failure on my part.

As 1 mentioned earlier, often things have corne to me easily but 1 howother filmmalcers who struggle much more and today the cornpetition is so much greater.

You deal with very diverse issues and not just 'women issues' .....

Manjira Datta: The issue of women is always integral, but my films definitely do not just deal with 'women issues.' 1 remember once 1 was showing my film on the

Circus artists, and Seeds of Plentv. Seeds of Sorrow, and 1 later met a woman who was the producer with Satyajit Ray at that time. She comrnented, 'women can also make films that have nothing to do with women? ...' 1was shocked ...how cmanyone feel that women should make films about women's issues - that is so ghettoizing!

My recent film, Rishte (Relationships), was filmed in Delhi. It primady tells the story of Lali Devi, a mother of five daughters, who poisons herself and two of her children. The film portrays how sorne segments of Indian society value sons over daughters - often with devastating consequences, as in the case of Lali Devi, who because she bore only daughters, became so distraught that she took her own life. 1 got interested to do this film afier coming across an article in the Pioneer newspaper about Lali Devi.

Though it was a film about a woman, there were hardly any women in the film, and it is really about male conflict and contradictions. Funding for this project was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, one of the largest private philanthropie foundations of the United States.

Mer we made the film, a small organization was formed in Mongolpuri (west

Delhi) which was started with very little funding and I helped to set it off - it is mainly a

CPI setup - a woman's organization where people can go to learn about their rights.

I tind that in your fdms you use a lot of repetition of shots - to emphasùe a point - is there any particular style that you stick to?

Manjira Datta: 1 have used repetition in quite a few of my films, particularly

Babulal Bhuiva. But I don? want to be associated with 'a' particular style. Every film can't be cinema vente. 1 am a multi-faceted person and 1 make al1 kinds of films. 1 am willing to see al1 kinds of style and people have to grant me the fkeedom to work in any way 1 want. 1 hate categories, ghettoization of any kind. As I said earlier, 1 don't want to be known as a filmmaker who is recognized as doing only "women's issues", or a filmmaker who has a particular aesthetic and so on ... 1 don? want to be known just as an activist, or just as a filmmaker - 1 have many interests and am multi-faceted.

How do you judge the success of your film? What has been the most satisfying experience?

Manjira Datta: My films have travelled widely and ofien 1 do try to cany my films for different screenings. There have been many great experiences but recently after one of my screenings of my last film, Rishte (relationships), a young man came up to me and apologized for not clapping at the end of the film. He said he had liked the film a lot,

but it made him think. He said it affected hirn and some of his fnends, and raised many

questions for them. 1 was happy and assured him that 1 often did not understand why

people clapped after a screening. I was so glad that it made him and his fnends question

the fact that he was a male in a patriarchal society - his role and so on. That is the power of film. It is the greatest satisfaction when people take the film out of the theater, take it with them - to think about, to act upon.

Filmography and Videography:

(Manjira Dutta)

1986: AU Roads Closed: A 55 min. 16mm film on Bonded Labor and prostitution of women in the Garhwal region of India.

1988: Sacrifice of Babulal Bhuiva: A 63 min. documentary film for Channel 4 UK and

ARD Hamburg, Germany. A film on the many memones about the death of a worker in a community which recycles coal waste.

1989: Khilti Kalivan: A 26 part, 20 min. each, Drama senal for UNICEF and

Directorate of Adult Education.

1990: Ringmasiers: A 40 min. Current Affairs film for Doordarshan about the use of money and muscle power in elections.

1991: Democracv in Crisis: A 52 min. 16mrn film on the political crisis and changes in

India between Jan 1990 and August 1991.

1991: Portraits from a Dream Show: A 52 min. 16mm film on the inside and outside world of Indian world of Indian Circus artists. 1992: Seeds of Plentv, Seeds of Sorrow: A 52 min. 16mm on the conflict in food policy

between the North and South.

1993: Ek Aur Naema: A 25 min. video film on aduIt literacy.

1993: Avodhva: A video program for BBC for the World this Week to reflect the celebration of Indian Artists as organized by the group SAHMAT.

1993: Power of Partnershi~:A 20 min. video docurnentary on Labor and Management

inter-action for Tata Steel.

1994: Rishte - Reiationshi~s(The Preferred Sexk A 25 min. documentary on male preference for the Population Conference in Cairo. Funded by MacArthur Foundation,

Chicago. Interview with Suhasini Mulay - New Delhi, Januau 1996.

This interview war conducted at Suhasini Muhy's CAPART office where she was

working as the Media Advisor.

FOREWORD: 1 have worked with Suhasini Mulay for nearly five years in the

company called 'Cinemart Foundation' which she ran along with Tapan Bose and later 1 continued to work with her in her company called 'Suhasini Mulay Productions'. The

following interview has been recorded on video and 1 must add that it was a pleasure to

intemiew her. Suhasini Mulay expresses her ideas very well and has clear ideological cohesiveness about the work she is doing. 1 hope to be able to edit the video for circulation.

Her mother, Vijaya Mulay often visits Montreal in the summer and 1 hope to interview her soon as she has a lot of information about the documentary scene in India.

She is over 70 years and has been closely associated with the film industry.

AT THIS TIME SUHASINI MULAY IS ALSO WORKNG AS THE MEDIA

AD VISOR AT CAPART (couNcrL FOR AD VANCEMENT OF PEOPLES' ACTION &

RURAL TECHNOLOGY)

Suhasini, how did you get into the field of documentary filmmaking? How did you start your work in this field?

Suhasini Mulay: Well, the thing is that 1 have been associated with films not

filmmaking largely because my mother was a film buff and before one could understand

what film or cinema was al1 about one was already irnrnersed in the New French Wave. 1

remember 1 saw my first Kurosowa film at the age of 10-12 years and most of it went

over my craniurn anyway, but certainly there was a fascination for cinema - the medium. 1 guess it was more chance than anything else that 1 drifted into acting. And this is Bhuvan

Shome' made in 1968. One was in fiont of the camera - the film did extremely well -that had to do more with the timing of the film and less with my acting - it was shown al1 over the world but what it did to Indian cinema was more important than what it did to world cinema because in world cinema it may/may not feature but it was, 1 think, the first

'quote' 'unquote' "art" or "parallel" kind of film. It became popular - it was a successhl, financial film - it also began to encourage other people who were dissatisfied with the kind of films (feature films) being made in India to begh to thin. that this was a financially viable proposition -so just after Bhuvan Shome you had a whole rash of filmmakers with Shyarn Benegal, Basu Chatterjee, Govind Nihalani came much later -

Jabbar Patel - this whole lot who came afterhround the early 70's. For myself after having acted in Bhuvan Shome - 1 went to study at Montreal - first studied at McDonald college studying Agriculture and then switched over after finishing my CEGEP to McGill where

1 met Dr-Gnerson. Dr-Grierson was a Calvinist - and his Caivinism extended to the

Documentary filmmaking field. If anybody can be held responsible for me falling in love with documentaries as a format - it was the old man - he had this incredibie ability to seize you by the throat and not let you go. So, 1got seized and came back to India having moved fiom agriculture technology to communications of some variety. So when I came back to India, 1 had mentally geared rnyself to join Television here and be able to work in the field of rural development. 1 had this romantic notions of serving the country - 1 do not know if that romance is over yet or not. So 1 came to India, and as it happens with rnost filmmakers - and especially in lndia where there iç no hnding available- at dl-

6.1 Bhuvan Shome was the f~st'art film' made in India. It was directed by Mrinal Sen in 1968. Suhasini was around 14 years of age at that tirne. there are no grants, there are no systems set up where films can be produced so you begin your life by hustling for a film.

And so 1 hustle for a film. And one of the first few people that I met - a very, very well known Indian filmmaker called Sukhdev. 1was essentially a camera woman first and then a filmmaker. He had this incredible quality to actually make "one picture speak a thousand words" and he had produced some incredibIe docurnentaries that I have seen - and so because of that association also I became interested in docurnentaries and docurnentary filmmaking as opposed to feature films which is the main trend in India - at lest in the past, now T.V. has taken over. 1 got into documentaries and as luck would have it for some reason - in the enacted format - the fkst film that 1 made was in fact an enacted docudrama kind of film. It was made with hard eamed money and aided by my mother, Mends, Romans and country men! who came and helped out - like it happens with everyone's first film. Surprisingly it hirned out to be a good film.

Which was your first film?

Suhasini Mulay: The name of the first filrn was Likh Ke De Do - literally translated in English as 'Give it to me in Wnting' or 'Write it out for me'. That is the theme of the film and it is a iight hearted attempt of making the subject of adult literacy and adult education because the problem in India with literacy is that one does not have to be literate in order to survive - but you can live happily in India - do trade, go fiom O to X number of years and not need the written word in order to swive. There are enough systems that let you do without it. So people living in rural areas - find literacy rather a bit of a luxury and do not see why they should take away fiom the basic problem of survival - so 1 thought of a whole series of films on adult education - seven of them - 1 have only made three - the other four are still to be made. The first plunge into film or

fihaking was in fact not documentary in the traditional sense of the word - but it had more to do with an enacted kind of presentation. Afer that one did move on to making other documentaries - other hard hitting kind of films - I also tearned up with an ex-

filmmaker (winks after saying this) - a filmmaker - Tapan Bose and we worked in quite a

few projects together - more are Ieft unfinished than finished - but some of them are really path breakers. 1 actually have now and then seriously wanted to make a feature - more for tactical reasons then for interests firankly. The feature filmmaker has - the real name, the real money - the person who has al1 the farne and glarnour. Face it - al1 filmmaking or any creative arts is as linked with fame or recognition if you will of somebody's work as it is with making money. And both of them tip to the feature filmmakers. And there are some subjects that lend themselves to one particular kind of treatment - there are some subjects that cry for documentaries - some that cry for a feature

- but by and large the bulk of the subject matters of 'cinema' can be captured in either formats depending on what is it you want to Say and how much skill you have in saying it. I hopefully will make a feature but 1 am still not convinced that is a better format.

Documentaries in India especially have a very, very large scope in terms of actually being able to contribute to change - in some way- change attitudinally. While I also believe that a film director however he/she is wi11 always fiame the picture - it will always look pasted in a feature film. The faces you get in a country like India are very telling. Very

few actors are fkom the poor segment - so the actors are limited. So when you are

showing a poor person - he or she is not really a poor person - she is dressed as a poor

and a poor person can tell the difference frorn a well fed and a non well fed face. Also the aesthetics: the way they stand, the way they move is very, very different. So, in a country like hdia you need to use documentaries much more you need to really show - not contrive. And so one is hooked to this medium.

1s that happening though?

Suhasini Mulay: Showing of documentaries? In a very small way. Certainly it is not as systematically worked out - the distribution systems in hdia does not exist. A lot of films get made that don't get shown. In India, we have not organized the distribution network - we haven't organized it for two reasons: like in most places it is a rnatter of fiuiding and unlike Canada or America we do not have a channel like PBS. We don't have a University distribution system where a whole circuit caters to the University - even though there is a big constituency in hdia - and in spite of the large population of India we do not have any organized system - because there is no fimding or money available for it. In hdia it doesn't pay at a11 to distribute documentaries. There are some schemes for distribution in India but they are al1 geared for feahire films. Documentaries were shown in theaters in the 60's and 70's but we had a documentary agency called the Films

Division that produced the films, because the theater owner was told to show them before the feature film - sixteen minute of documentaries. So they wanted one documentary every week to feature in the theater every week! Now no independent documentary filmmaker is able to guarantee one documentary per week of 15 minutes in 25 different

Indian languages. And so that task was taken over by a department of the Govemment of hdia called Films Division which for the most part has produced the most putrid kind of cinema that one comes across. So the net result is that Indians threw out the 'baby' with the bath water which was that they threw out the format of documentaries fiom our lexicon of film and filmmaking. We have seen such lousy documentaries al1 our life.

Even today if you watch documentaries produced in India including mine - we tend to

talk so much - we are constantly verbose - and the reason is that we al1 got trained in

illustrated audio programs. The bulk of hdian documentaries are in fact illustrated audio

programs. 1 am having a probtem here in CAPART (refers to the organization she is

presently working for) in this capacity sitting behind the desk - where now 1 am a

producer for a govemment organization trying to get filmmakers that 1 know personally

to make films that are different. They can't do it. 1 have had 2-3 filmrnakers writing a

script and I keep saying - get away fkom the words - 'SHOW!'. Partly it is a matter of

budgeting but partly it is here (points to her head) they can't do it! So it is bad material

that is produced. In any case people are not interested in this format. There is no system or any support system - so we don? have a distribution system.

You talk about the change - about working behind the desk - why have you moved on to doing this??? Working at Capart as a media advisor rather than making

documentaries for the past year?

Suhasini Mulay: I think there are three reasons. The first of them is that 1 have now spent 18-19 years of my life making documentaries but largely banging my head against the wall because the money in documentaries in India is with the Govemment of

India and they are not interested in making films - they want to taik about their own programs - they are not interested - in cinerna of change - or cinema of revolution, or

cinema of experimentation. They want program X being carried out in place Y to be

shown in place 2. That's the basic think format of it. And yet 1 honestly believe that if

you know how to work the system - you may not be able to make anti-establishment documentaries because not many govemment officiais have the guts to give money for it which they sometimes give or not give. There is a whole gamut or range of human experience out there to tap. Your client never knows what they want. So 1 decided that one thing to do was to move away from making the kind of films that people paid me for.

1 really want to get into what is called 'developmental communications'. 1 think that is where the future of documentary filmmaking in hdia is, or probably filmmaking anywhere - but definitely in India By developmental communications 1 mean where people are making changes. You see in 1967-68 in India there was a very large politicai upsurge called Naxalbari and many fine people that joined it, my generation, died fighting for a revolution. This happened around the same time as the May 1968 rnovement in France and then there was the hippy era and so on and so forth. Those who swived are now my age and they are al1 (at lest most of thern) are working in srnall, small pockets making little, little changes. And we hdians are such lousy historians there is nobody to record al1 this. 1 agree that in the large population that India constitutes, it is a small section, nevertheless these people are changing the lives of thousands, hundred thousands as opposed to hundred millions as we need to. And they are in dire need of material to show, to exchange information, to find out what is happening in one part of the country into the other. Because experiments are being tried. And we never learn £tom them because they are never documented. 1 really want to get into that area of work. So 1 decided to enter the NGO (non governmental organization) sector. Because the NGO sector in India has just boomed. There are two industries in India that have really boomed: one is the NGO indusm and the other is the media industry. And I happen to be sitting in both. 1 decided that maybe this was one way to get to know, get to learn what this particular area of work was doing and to get paid for doing that at the same time. The second reason why 1joined this was that 1 was fed up of hustling. 1 hustled for 18 years for getting in film. So I have taken a sabbatical for two years which will now end in ten months time. And then I am back to hustling - 1 donit think 1 am going to change the history of the world or the history of India. But now that 1 sit behind this desk, 1 see the tremendous potential that something like this has. If you are in films - you are stuck with the discipline of shooting, cutting, editing a film. So you follow it al1 the way through and the lousiest thing is to do the accounts afterwards - yet we do it. This is the discipline of this particular medium so 1 am doing it. And the one thing that 1 hope to be able to achieve is to in fact set up a distribution network. Corne a full Circle!

But that's one of the ktthings I have attempted to do in this organization called

CAPART which is the acronym for CounciI for the Advancement of Peoples' Action and

Rural Technology - the name is very big - the airn is to promote voluntarism in India - whatever that means! Hopehlly by the end of the two years that 1 am here we will have some more fùnds to pour into the distribution system concerning documentaries.

Do you recognize yourself as one of the pioneers in this field. Wben it cornes to women entering the realms of documentary filmmaking in India?

Suhasini Mulay: Yuck!! 1 do not think 1 cm cal1 myself as one of the pioneers - that is probably overwhelming. 1unfortunately do not have the arrogance of saying so but

I kind of doubt it. Women filmmaken have been in India since 1921 - very very few though. But they have been there. Hmrn.. probably one of the dinosaurs of the era - YES. At the time when I had entered the field 1 think there were around 14-1 5 on the outset that 1 can count - there may have been more- but I don't think so. And now you can't count them!

So in the sense of nurnbers pionee~g- alright - in any other way - I don? know.

Yes- one of the early womedspecimen who went into filmmaking - one of the early specimen who went into the technical - behind the camera part of filmmaking. When I was working as an assistant for Ray (Satyajit Ray) in an industry of 5,000, 1 was the only woman behind the carnera - on the technical side, as there were a lot of women hairdressing and in other jobs.

You have made Likh Ke De Do, Chitthi, Kaeaz Ki Lekhi - which were a11 promoting adult Iiteracy. These were commissioned by the Directorate of adult Educatioo?

Suhasini Mutay: Nope they weren't.

Likh Ke De Do was Wded by yours truly and mother and fkiends and countrymen. And yes, the others: Chitthi and Kagaz Ki Lekhi were funded by the

Directorate of Adult Education.

Before that you made Bho~alBeyond en oc ide^^ with Tapan Bose and Salim

Shaikh ... In terms of Impact wbich one amongst: An Indian Stoy. Bhooal: Be~ond Genocide or the Literacy films - as documentaries which were more receptive?

Suhasini Mulay: Surprisingly enough, the film that got shown the most was my first film called Likh Ke De Do. It got shown because UNICEF picked it up. I met an

Afghan the other day who saw Likh Ke De Do in Afghanistan. He had seen it as they had

65 This film was fmally passed by the censors in 1987 and documents the year-long and agonizing search for a cure by the victims of the deadly poison Methyl Isocynite (MC). The gas was released into the BhopaI atrnosphere by the Union Carbide Corporation at 2 am. on the 3rd of Decernber 1984. This has been the world's biggest industrial disaster. Bevond Genocide exposes the manipulations of this giant multinational. made it as a package of the literacy movernent there. It was one film which was made with a lot of care. It was one film that 1 made, I took it back to the village where it was shot. Of course to show it to the people and those who had helped and those who had heiped me to rnake that film. But then one did take it to other places and change it a littie bit. I did not have money to reshoot it but whatever could be changed in the audio tracks was changed to suit the questions that came back because what people asked and what f thought the film rnight convey. It was sometimes quite different - but they obviously liked it - so 1 am not complaining. The fihwas in Hindi so it reached a large audience.

About the questions being different: well, it is a simple story - it is a story about a woman who is completely illiterate, who doesn't want to be literate and whose husband works in a factory who unlike other male members in India would like to have his wife to be literate.

The husband plays a trick with his wife who is not interested to lem to read or write and sends a letter through a fnend which is addressed to him. The wife does not know this and suspects her husband. She does not give the letter to her husband but rather enrolls herself for the literacy classes given in the village. When she finally reads the letter it is addressed to her and written by her husband who had derived this method to provoke her towards literacy. But what they like about the film was what I had hoped they would like. That the message of literacy was not being thudded on their heads. It was a story that was told in a simple manner - al1 the messages that 1 had to ask in the end had corne through. They liked the film. In fact, if 1 remember in one village we had 25 shows that I got so fed up of seeing rny film that 1 said I am going home - enough is enough!

What form works more... has more impact.... Suhasini Mulay: This film worked and that gave me encouragement and made

me work on the same lines with Kagaz- Ki Lekhi and Chitthi. Again the format was the

same - and 1 think the reason why people in India would take a narrative format much more easily is because we are used to parables as a form of teaching. By which 1 mean - if you read any of the scriptures - the Koran or the Bible - it is an older form of communication where you tell a story of the prodigal son - you tell a story about the son but you talk about many other things which leads to tell the story. Though in terms of what 1 cal1 the 'straight documentaries' 1 think An Indian Stow was a more successhl film, was better understood, was better received. Even though it was not really made for the people. You how when you start taking about things statistically, like 60% of this and 35% of that - it means nothing. Like in India you Say that 3% of children who are born are affected by polio - for most 3 in a hundred means nothing. Of course when you multiply that with the population of hdia and you are coming up with the largest country affected by polio in the world!

Statistics doesn't make sense to people over here. It is not a society which is literate - essentially it is an illiterate mind that we have to address. It was a film that was made by the filrnmakers, 1 was only the producer but even the filmmaker who made it - we did not think about an audience - one was so homfied at the fact that in a country like

India which at that point had a 30 - 35 years of democracy behind it - there were still

cases where people could be blinded in a police station by pouring acid in their eyes. And

it was because we were completely shaken fiom that basic fact that An Indian Storv was

made. The question is not how horrible they are but why are they so homble - because

equally homfic things happen in other societies. And so one set off on a joumey to tv and answer that question. That how could the police in a small police station have enough courage - get the help ofa medical doctor to gouge out the eyes of 27 people and pour acid in their eyes. It is completely brutal - completely inhuman. And I think that is why that film works because it asks those pertinent questions.

After you made the film - about how these 27 people were blinded - did the film help them to get justice by the fact that the issue got exposed by you through your film?

Suhasini Muiay: 1think it did. Again because of the film per se. Though the film was shown to the people and the families that were involved in this - the groups that were involved. The tfiing with al1 these 27 people was that they were al1 under-tial prisoners. They were al1 people who came nom lower middle class or poor families in

Bhagalpur (a village in Bihar). And one or two of them were really quite homble criminals. One of them 1remember was called 'Botti' which means 'a chunk of meat' in

Hindi. He used to kill people by slicing their toes and working upwards. So there was very little sympathy for these people locally - these were habitua1 criminals, the people who had terrorized the place - some of them were like that - and out of that 13 were completely innocent. Completely innocent! Because once the blinding started then the people began to pay to blind someone they wanted to fix or settle the score with. So as usual, with our creativity (says it sarcastically) in India - the police managed to make this into a money making proposition as well. That is when the uproar started - but by which time people had already been blinded. But you can't blind 27 people in one day and in one police station it was done in the course of penod of time. It was that part of pre- meditativeness (if you will) of this that got conveyed through the film and there was a lot of press about it. Again completely incidentaily - and that had to do with the fact that eventually the censon didn't pass it and thus there was publicity about the fiim began because the fih was banned. Look at the irony of it - it had nothing to do with the 27 poor people who had lost their eyes for the rest of their lives. It had to with the fact that two fiimmakers if not very well connected but f?om a well educated background had produced a film - 1 think I can quote - they had "challenged the basic fibre of democracy" or some such rubbish like that and had the film stuck at the censor board - and that story drifted back and than the film got shown to more and more and more people! So, that reportage again helped in reviving the case, in getting people there - the fact that there was very little rehabilitation there etc. ....But only in that context.

1 think that where we were able to intervene or we Iearnt a lesson fiom, was the

Bhopal film. We took the Bhopal film fiom India al1 the way to Amenca to show in

Justice Keenan's court - where the case was being tried before it was sent back to hdia - to Say that the case should be tned in Amenca. Union Carbide kept saying that the incident had happened in India, the victims are in India, the judges are in India - where the legal system is very solid (raises eyebrows) so why should it be tried in Arnerica?

Because the film was shown to Justice Keenan he ruled that the case be tried in U.S. because the Indian govt. was looking for punitive damages. And so in that sense we were able to make more direct intervention with that fih. But you know the history of the

Bhopal case of what happened - we had made a film earlier than Bhopal: Bevond

Genocide which was shown in Hindi - that in fact had a greater impact in Bhopal itself.

As it was produced and finished three months after the Bhopal incident and it was shown bang on the gates of Union Carbide and unfortunately 1 was not able to be there for the screening of the film as 1 didn't have enough money to fly down with it - and so the film was couriered. But 1 was told there was an audience of 10,000 - Steven Spielberg cm still wait! An audience of 10,000 for one screening and I assessed the impact of that film when I went to Bhopal a week later, it was very amusing (Beams) - we had portions of the docurnentary/commentary - portion of the interviews being spoken - like the way you know kids speak the dialogues fkom Hindi films - and we actually heard that - and we had a good laugh. But it obviously helped people a lot in the catharsis partly but, it did something more important - you see what happened in Bhopal as it happens anywhere where disaster strikes - everybody has their own little tales and their own experiences to taik about and so nobody has an overall view of the incident as you are so caught in saving yowçelf. And because this film crystallized al1 the issues or most of the issues about how the accident happened. We actually animated the bit about water entering the tank and the way the explosion took place - and how the gas spread over the city. And the photographs had an impact - photographs of dead people, injured or anirnals affected and so on. This was immediately after the disaster so the people were able to assimilate and to extemalize a lot of the trauma that they had faced. I think the film did go a long way in that particular area but less so in other places in India.

Would you prefer one style of documentary-filmmaking over another -1 mean the docu-fictional over the 'straight-documentary' as you cal1 them?

Suhasini Mulay: As 1 said 1 refuse to Say that one style is better as it really depends on the subject matter! Some subjects cry for a story some for documenting as it is.

As a filrnmaker which technical format do you prefer? Do you prefer to work on

16mm or the video? Suhasini Mulay: Preference is nothing to do with efficiency - I like to work on a film format because I Iike the feel of celluloid - 1 like the smell of it and of course the picture quality is very good - picture quality would be far better on discs. I learnt filmaking by counting lengths (points to her hand) like this and this is the right size of a shot - than fiom going to 20.22 to 20.33 or whatever that is! It is also a matter of usage - if it is a film that is going to have an impact over a long penod of time it is stupid to make video films. Videos decay fast. But if you are not going to use it for very long - if it is an incident, of an happening that needs to be recorded, caught and than disseminated - than I don't see why we should spend time, energy and money on celluloid. That is being stupid.

1 in fact end up working ahost equally in both. One has one set of limitations technically and the other has another set of limitations - like in video special effects are a treat to do - in film special effects are a pain and such other things. Ar,d this goes a11 the way down the line. And of course film is much more expensive!

Do you have an audience in mind before or during the time you are conducting research for your films? Who are your target audience - who do you have in mind - is it a specific audience that you work towards usualiy?

Suhasioi Mulay: Yes, I think every film has a targeted audience. Every film has

'a' group of particular people that it will make maximum effect on. But then there is a ripple effect - it is not just that it is made for one person or one particular audience. What effects one person will affect another differently maybe not as intensely - but surely there are ripple effects from any kind of film. Till now 1have made three films on the subject al1 targeted for women: women and women literacy - 1 was very clear that it is a very narrow band of the education system which is called literacy ... Any reason for choosing that "narrow band"?

Suhasini Mulay: Well, there is an age old saying that "information is power".

And the one group that is achially powerless in this country is women: especially mal women - most women across the board - but definitely rural women. A large part of the lack of power has to do with lack of information. And in a country like in hdia which is multi-lingual, multi-cultural and every other kinds of cross currents you can throw into it

- the fastest and cheapest way to information and power is the wtitten word. Now there are lots of experimentation's and alternative materiais, materials that sense to rural people. neo-literacy material, there is work going on in that - but the bulk of what you can pick up in the book shop today, is a middle class addressed matenal. When those material become textbooks - than you have an alienated class of people who are ûying to read and write. The problem for example is that Iike it is witten A is for apple - if you don't have access to an apple how are you going to associate A with an Apple! Once you are capable of your horizons beginning to open and questions begin to get asked - you already have opened the lid of the Pandora's box a little - Resistance to that happening is really amazing! 1 research my audience. In fact most of the stories 1 have picked up are stories that potential audience have told me. It is clubbed in with other things and fitted in with persona1 expenences. For example the whole idea of Chitthi (the letter) - the whole idea was sparked off fiom a persona1 experience - 1 lived in a place where there was no pnvacy and mail got opened - and this is very mie of any Indian family - a letter arrives in the family and everybody wants to read it - because the farnily unit in India is much tighter luit - 1 have always w&en two letters - one which says - how is your mother, father..type.. and another a persona1 letter - and so the idea came from there. The idea came from there where somebody sends a letter to his wife - one which is a personailofficial letter addressed to his wife and the other a general one for the entire household which is an unofficial letter - the woman can't read - so both the letters get read publicly! So, that one was pulled out fkom one's own experiences but the family, the people, the position the whole interplay, the pressures of the father-in-law and the mother-in-law is typical of any Indian farnily.

One needs to target the audience and see what the target thinks and believes.

There is an incredible gulf between the very aesthetics of what somebody like me or you or anybody in the middle class of India thinks like - 1 am not just taking about thinking - but the aesthetics of body language, of how you sit. These things one is not even aware of initially. It took me a long time to realize why I was threatening somebody else. You are sitting perfectly quietly and drinking a cup of tea and you realize that you are the only woman in the whole tea-shop because al1 the women are sitting over there under the tree because they don't even have the courage to wak into the tea shop and dnnk tea! So, I target the audience, I research them because if I ever use a woman in a tea-shop drinking tea, she has to be urban you do not use a mal woman. A rural woman does not sit in a tea-shop unless accompanied by her husband - he will sit towards the door and she will sit away etc, etc... So if you are doing a documentary and you are not artificially creating and pulling out elements and putting them there - than you have to be very careful.

You said that women always have to struggle and the Larger majority of women in

India are powerless or have to struggle to some degree - as a woman and being in the field largely dominated by men - what are your experiences? Suhasini Mulay: 1 can give you one very clear example - in order to be a part in order to be accepted as a part of a technical team at the age of 20 or 21, 1 learnt to swear. 1 stood in fiont of a rnirror and took every piece of breaking my upbringing and say 'Fuck' for the first time. The men especially in Deh or around Delhi - in Harayana and Punjab there is a swear word that says - 'Fuck your sisterLand they don7 even know they are saying it ... but a woman is taught not to swear. So I stood in fiont of a rnirror and taught myself to swear - not that this has to anything with filmmaking but it is part of being a part of the culture. When I came to Lndia was at that point 1 was working as an assistant to

Satyajit Ray at that time and after a days shoot is over you sit and do a postmortem - I would get excluded fÏom that postmortem because 1didn't drink. So, if 1 wanted to leam and sit down with the camera man and analyze how the lighting was done why something was placed as it was - there are lots of people who do not drink - but in those days and even today you have to work twice as hard, know mice as much, technically 1 have to know twice as more as an assistant director, as a fernale assistant director, than the guy who is next to me who is also an assistant director but is a male because you are challenged so much more. And the challenge is not necessarily verbal not necessarily sarcastic or snide or getting to you - it is inbuilt, it is inbuilt into the men, it is inbuilt into the women.

You have worked with men crews mainly....

Suhasini Mulay: Al1 the time.

Have you ever thought of joining or forming a women's group involved in documentary filmmaking? 1s it important to you who you hire? Suhasini Mulay: No! If 1 find a good technician whether it is a man or woman - the person has to be good. 1 donTtthink there is any virtue in picking up a woman camera person who is not as good and not pick up a male camera person even though he is slightly better.

But 1 am very sure 1 would not work with an al1 woman tearn.

Why?

Suhasini Mulay: Because it is too much power - it is too alien looking to walk into a rural situation unprotected! It's a sad commentary on what we are but the sight of five or six women looking as alien as we are with al1 this technical gizmo- we would alienate people. Villagen are not willing to accept women technicians - city people are not able to accept women technicians. It will happen - I am sure - given the way things are shaping now - with more women working as camera people now - maybe in 15 years down the line.

You did not have any problems while working with men?

Suhasini Mulay: With the men on location?? Maybe once or twice. 1 think al1 men are oppressive towards wornen. You walk into a government office and they will Say

(very patronizingly) 'Madame, what do you do?' Well, 1 Say - '1 script, 1 direct, 1 use the camera....' So they say 'Camera is a very difficult job, no?' So 1 reply - 'It is as difficult as being director - No?!' They can't get into their brains that there is a woman who does al1 this.

Do you feel there is a difference between films made by men - in terms of their style, the issues that they deal with in relation to women filmmakers? Do you think there is a difference of aesthetics as perceived by men and women? Suhasini Mulay: It is very hard to pin point what it is exactly but yes, not in al1 women filmakers do you find this difference - 1 think yes, there is a difference in the interpretation of an image - of how a woman sees a problem. There is a male point of view to the problem and there is a female point of view to the problem.

1 find that when you are interviewing women in India and you have a woman behind the camera or in the crew. There is a difference in the response if it was an al1 male crew .

I know there is this whole business about the female aesthetics and 1 have had this experience a few times when I have been shooting with Tapan and 1 would hea frame in a particular way and he would look at it and &une it differently. 1 would go back and look through the camera and Say - 'That is not my £kame' and shove it back to where it was previously. And he would go - 'Why, this looks good' - and I'd go - Yeah - but it ain't mine.

And it was a docu-fictional and so could be construed to some degree?

Suhasini Mulay: This whole business that fiction is unreal and documentary is real is junk.

Yeah, Okay.

Suhasini Mulay: It is unadulterated junk. The fact that you are shooting me in this (points to her framing) or this or whatever your heis - has nothing to do with reality! You have already tinkered with it - you have put a camera, what the physical presence of a camera is doing is a different ball-game. You are not showing reality. So why go around with these dumb notions. The only thing that a documentary filrnmaker has to do is to be tnithhl to the subject as they see it. that is the only thing you can commit yourself to. Afterall tmth is a many faceted entity.

7'here is a difference, but you see we get so bombarded with the dominant aesthetics that one tends to pick up ideas of composition, ideas of light, what goes with what and al1 that, and that leaming is so sub-conscious, that unless you go back and start analyzing it. After a11, when you are composing a Erame - you don't sit and wonder at that time if it is aesthetically feminist or not. I tend to link it more with the marner in which the subject is treated. The mamer in which a wornan will make an argument. And so the way a woman tackles an argument is very different hmthe way a man tackles an argument. You will find very often, women will give their own exarnples, men very seldom do that. You will oflen fuid a woman placing herself in discussions and will bring there own examples, Like a woman would Say this is what happened to me and what if you were in rny position how would you react and so on.... while men do not like being dealt like that.

There is a difference - maybe the difference is as much psychological - maybe it is as much as to with the idea that men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be weak and al1 those classical images that the male and the fernale in this society have stuck in their brains. You do not find that in other walks of life in India for example it is the woman that carries the firewood but in Europe it is the man that carries the firewood not the woman. Because here the woman in the lower classes are used to working - they are used to working 18 hours a day - the men are used to working 8 hours a day! The women do the weeding which is really a back-breaking work in the fields, men do the ploughing. Ploughng is tough but it is nowhere as tough as weeding. But ploughing is considered more skilled, therefore more taught, requiring more investment by the family to teach the child and hence the division in sexes, gender. You go to the hills - 1 don't know if it has to with the latitude, the platitude or what ... but men will not work. 1 have never known a more lazy set of jokers than hi11 men. The women will go down one kilometer, bring it one kilometer up and the man will sit and have a bath with hot water!

The first time 1 saw it - it blew rny mind. I told these women why do you it - don't do it.

The woman was 30 years old but looked older than me. She said she had to get up five in the moming - she had to get water- that meant 12 trips before 8 in the morning that woman had walked vertically up and down approximately six miles! With water. Than she went to the forest, picked the firewood, than she cooked looked after the family. Huh!

In the season where male labor was required they would work in the field with them and then the women would corne back and do the winnowing and then sit down and then cook the evening meal. So, in the lower class of the society while men Say that they are stronger - I don't fZnd that kind of division of Iabor. It is more to do with the upper middle class where when a tyre goes but, a woman stands at the side O the road and the man is supposed to fix the tyre. It has often happened with me that 1 know more about cars than the guy who is a passenger next to me.

What are the issues that you would Iike to tackle or you want to deal with through your films?

Suhasini Mulay: Oh dear! 1 think the fmal bee in my bonnet is the fact that no movement in the world works if the women are convinced it works! Women are much harder to move - much more conservative - not open to change - they are the ones - at least in India - that keep the orthodoxy going. The citadels of orthodoxy in the family is the woman. But once they are moved - than the men actually become redundant within the social fabric. There are so many things that are happening in india right now - for example you have the agitation against ARAK - the local country aIcoho1 and the woman one day just got fed-up of the men going out, blowing up the money, coming home dnuik, beating them up - and so the domestic violence scenario - which in India maybe marginally more than the rest of the world. And so it started off in two villages, of women getting together - unmotivated by any voluntary agency or any outside forces.

Going one day to the local booze joint and breaking the bottles. They broke the bottles and warned the shopkeeper to get out of the village or they would bun the shop. And this then swept al1 of South India You know what has suddenly happened that al1 these agencies of change have realized that if you can get to the wornen you can get to the hand that rocks the cradle. And that is where change will begin. And 1 think that is why I want to get more and more into developmental communications. I thùik it is time we looked at these issues at a rnuch more low level feminism than what has been so far done in India by the middle classes. Rather than the aggressive feminism that one has seen so far in

India, it is time we began talking about women, women's movement, of what they can do, how they affect the basic fabnc of society. But 1 want to do that at a rural level. I think both the city and the vilIages need to be mobilized. And there are people working in the cities and there are also people working in the villages. My initial thrust would be towards villages and that is where I want to go into more and more.

See 1 don't want to do political films - 1 do want to take up political issues, because 1 don't think women's issues are women's issues only - there is this whole rnyth.

When 1 am talking about women's issues or taking up these projects about women, it is not that 1 am not takng about anybody else. We have so far, so solidly ignored the woman's point of view in any given issue. That one should start to tilt the balance - for example one of the things 1 would like to do is to do a film on Kashmir. nie structure that

1 would like to work on is to look at the Kashmir problem fkom the point of view of three women fiom three generations. Men are actually daf€ - they never use the help of women for militancy. So the women, being women, stay at home and they look after their sons who come back home bleeding - patch them up and send them back. Initially in Kashrnir, the militancy had a lot of support. 1 remember when I went in 1987-88 to Kashmir - 1 was pushed around and told 'Indian dogs - go home'. The people later in 1990 when 1 went back, began to differentiate between the statdgovernment of India and the people of

India. Now the situation is such that people are getting fed up by the militants because the militants themselves are fighting amongst themselves. And also what happens in a situation of rnilitancy is that - there is no one kind of agency that is monitoring the situation. All the malaise of a militant movement has crept in now, some injected by the

Indian govemment, some injected by the Pakistani government - who knows! People are getting fed up. 1 want to interview three generations of women, the women are much more forthright. Because the thinking is basic and more off the earth - the reactions are much more real. One woman who has been active in the whole Sheikh Abdullah rnovement, who actually fought to keep Kashrnir within India - the second woman who went through the period of disillusionment that Kashmir went through alright - and the third is a woman who has either joined the militancy or stood against it or maybe al1 four variations. 1have been often told by Kashiris - why are you interviewing women? And 1

Say the problem with men is that they talk a lot but not do much. The other problem with men is that they tend to look at a problem in terms of saying what is going to happen to the globe, what is it going to do to the world. While women are more direct and Say how it has affected their personal life. It is much more a one to one kind of statement - which in terms of camera works much better. And 1 am being a film person there, 1 think that a statement made which is spontaneous about themselves or something they want to be seen is more powerful than somebody saying in the year dot ... So 1 am thinking of structures like that which is not to Say that is not a political film. Nobody has bothered to ask the Kashmiri women what they think about the bloody militancy! If mybody is going to change it, it is going to be the women - because the reason is very simple - when a militant nins into your house - it is the woman who feeds him, gives him tea, not the man.

If she does not want to make food for the militant - it will not get made. Alright. If she sends her daughter out to fight - she is investing much, much more because for a woman to leave a traditional role and step out takes a hell of a lot more than it is for a man. That's why if we start looking at these issues - you promote it as a quote - unquote feminist film

- well forget it 1 am not interested in it. Enough of the bra buming variety of feminism - 1 don? think it works in india. It may have been correct with the cultural ethos when it happened in the States. But 1 don't think that is the kind of militancy we cm look at over here we have to find our own language.

Do you think in India we need a set up to promote women's work the way in Canada they have the Studio-D? Do you think that would help, be very advantageous?

Suhasini Mulay: Sure, we require a Studio-D for men as well. We produce such lousy movies - yuck! The kind of work that Studio-D does in tenns of given them support in scripts, support and that kind of guidance. We have nothing here. That kind of infrastructure...

Suhasini Mulay: No inhstructure - one there is the problem that filrnmakers never give their scripts to be looked ai. Women will probably do it more than men will. In fact 1 saw this film the other day made by this woman filmmaker - she would kill me if she knew - it is a film by Madhushree Dutta - called 'Mernories of fear' - and it is a film interviewing women who have faced domestic violence of one variety or the other.... and the film stinks, and it does so for a very simple reason - she tried to play with structure.

Which I think is damn good, it is good to play with structure and one has to experiment and one has to try. But she deals with enacted formats and mixes them with interviews. If we had a support system like the one in Canada, I think it would help tremendously. And have a s~ppoasystem for the men as well. (Smirks)

Amongst al1 your workr which do you feel ver=passionately about?

Suhasini Mulay: Let me ask the question differently, which is the one 1 really liked? Alright. Strange enaügh is that I liked my first film. 1 think it happens with everyone. The first film has a fieshness - 1 cantt describe it. Later on you may get more skilled and more polished and one gets better - but the film that 1 am really in love with is the film 1 will make next!

Whose work do you really admire amongst the Indian filmmakers?

Suhasini Mulay: Tons of people. Amongst documentaries: 1 love Sukhdev's films

- even though he has compromised a lot on the subjects he picked - I admire his work in tenns of sheer technical skills. In terms of scene beauty.

You learnt a lot from him as you worked with him when you began work in the field of documentary filmmaking. Suhasini Mulay: 1 leamt a lot fiom hirn but I wish 1 even had one fifth of his talent. He had a way of looking at images which was incredibie. His films for a large part were completely bibiical - they may have been on a 500 thermostat or something on nylon pilling or something - he had incredible vision to shoot that.

You know there are very few fihmakers who have a body of work nght now.

Well we've got Tapan, whose work I have worked with a lot but I have fought with everyone of them. Some very good films, some very bad films and lots of unfinished films. But then every filmmaker in the documentary world has made one or two very good films. I think that is the sustaining part of documentary as opposed to looking at a body of work as you look at the body of work of Ray or Mnnal Sen or you look at

Bergman, you find that there are lot of people making some very interesting work. Most exciting thing about documentary in India is that there is a whole generation of young filmmakers doing very exciting and interesting work. Excellent stuE I went to this festival in Trivandrum and it was very heartening to see 19 year olds and 20 years old - 1 must admit I felt very old - some of the work they are producing is very bad but most of it is quite wonderfùl. You know they are there. It is great to be in India now and see this next generation coming. 1 hope they make better stuff then we did.

Filmography and Videography: (Suhasini Mulay)

Films made as Director: 1976: Viwan Ki Padhai No:2 (Co-director with Mrinal Sen). 1977: Viwan Ki Padhai No:8 (Co-director with Tapan Bose). 1977: Sirnurg & Jadu Ki Kitab: Two films based on Uzbek folklore in collaboration with National Puppet Theater of Uzbekistan, U.S.S.R. Co-director with Tapan Bose. 1979: Likh Ke De Do: Docu-drama on Adult Literacy. 1979: A series of video programs on health for ISRO,Ahmedabad. 1988: Bhooal: Beyond Genocide: (Co-directed with Tapan Bose and Salim Sheikh): A 16mrn documentary on the manipulation of the multinational Company after the gas disaster in the gas plant of Bhopal in 1984. 1988: Jana Shiksha Nilavam: Documentary on Adult Literacy projects in Raj asthan. 1988-89: Chinhi: Docu-drama to promote literacy amongst women in the villages. 1989-90: Fluorosis: Educational documentary investigating the problems and effects of the disease fluorosis - coxmnon in certain regions of India. 1989-9 1: Ek Nava Uiiala: Documentary promoting literacy. 1989-90: Azaadi: Four part documentary on Kashmir. 1991-92: Three part series on Comrnunalism used during the elections in India. 1992: Makan Ho To Aisa: Documentary on the housing and developrnent in rural sector of India.

Films made as Producer: 198 1: An Indian Story: Documentary investigating the blinding of 27 under-trial prisoners in Bhagalpur (a village in Bihar) by police officials. 1983: Workers on the March. 1987: Technolow for Change: A four part video series for CAPART on appropriate technologies developed by the voluntary sector for rural development. Bibliography:

Barnouw, Erik and S. Krishnaswarny. Indian Film. (New York: Oxford, 1980).

Baniouw, Erik. Documentarv: Historv of the Non-Fiction Film. (Oxford University Press,

1984).

Carter, Kathryn- and Carole Spitzack, eds. Doing Research on Women's Communication:

Pers~ectiveson theorv and Method. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.,

1989).

Doane, Mary Am, Patricia Mellencarnp, and Linda Williams, eds. Re-Vision: Essays in

Feminist Film Criticism. (Frederick, MD: American Film Institute and University

Press of Arnerica, 1984). de Lauretis, Teresa "Serniotics and Expenence." Alice Doesn't: Feminism. Semiotics,

Cinema. (Bloomington: Indiana U. P., 1984) 158 - 188. de Lauretis, Teresa. Feminist Studies/Critical Studies. (Bloomington: Indiana U. P.,

1986). de Lauretis, Teresa. "Rethinking Women's Cinema: Aesthetics and Feminist Theory."

Technolonies of Gender: Essavs on Theow. Film and Fiction. (Bloomington and

Indianapolis: Indiana U. P., 1987) 127 - 148.

Gabriel, Teshome, H. Third Cinema in the Third World. (Am Arbor, MI: UMI Research

Press, 1982).

Ghadially, Rehana. Ed., Women in Indian Societv - A Reader. (Sage Publications India

Pvt. Ltd, 1988).

Johnston, Claire. "Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema," Notes on Women's Cinema.

(SEFT: London, 1973). Jacobs, Lewis, ed. The Docurnentq Tradition. (New York: Norton, 1979).

Kaplan, E.A. Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera. (New York: Methuen, Inc.,

1983).

Kluge, Alexander. Alexander Klu~e:A Retrosoective (The Goethe Institutes of North

America, 1988).

Kuhn, Annette. Women's Pichires: Feminism and Cinema. (London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1982).

Kumar, Radha The Histow f Doing: AN Illustrated Account of Movements for Women's

Rights and Feminism in hdia 1800-1990 (New Delhi: Indraprastha Press, 1993).

Lesage, Julia. "The Political Aesthetics of the Feminist Documentary Film," Ouarterly

Review of Film Studies (Fall 1978) 507-23.

Levin, Roy. Documentarv Ex~lorations:15 Interviews with Filmmakers. (Garden City,

N. Y.: Anchor, 1971).

Macdonald, Gerald M. 'Third Cinema and the Third World," Place. Power. Situation. and

Soectacle: A Geo~a~hvof Film, Stuart C. Aitken and Leo E. Zonn, eds.,

(London: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994) 28.

McGarry, Eileen. "Docurnentary, Realism, and Women's Cinema," Women and Film

Vol. 2, No.7 (1975) 50 - 57.

Marchessault, Janine. ed. Mirror Machine: Video and Identity (Toronto : WZBooks and

Center for Research on Canadian Cultural Industries and Institutions (CRCCII),

1995).

Minh-ha, Tnnh T. Women Native Other. (Bloomington: Indiana U. P., 1989). Mohan, Jag. Documentary Films and hdian Awakening (Bombay: Films Division,

IWO).

Nanvekar, Sanjit. "Filrns Division and the Independent Documentary." The March of the

Indmendents, (Bombay: Films Division, 1992).

Nelson, Joyce. The Colonized Eve: Rethinking the Grierson Leeend. (Toronto, Between

the Lines, 1988).

Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 199 1 ).

Patwardhan, Anand. 'The Guemla Film - Underground and in Exile: A Critique and a

case study of Waves of Revolution," M. A. Thesis, McGill U, July 198 1.

Rajadhyaksha, Ashish and Paul Willeman. Encvclo~aediaof Indian Cinema (New Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 1994).

Rakow, Lana F. Women Makine Meaning:- New Feminist Directions in Communication.

(London and New York: Routledge, 1992).

Report. "Devadasis Meet at Nipani: Victims of Exploitation Eom Temples to Brothels".

HOW,5, 1,(1982) 23-25.

Rosenthal, Alan. ed., New Challenges for Documentary (University of California Press,

1988).

Steven. Peter, Brink of Realitv: New Canadian Document- film and video (Toronto:

Between the Lines, 1993).

Willemen, Paul. "The Third Cinema Question: Notes and Reflections." Questions of

Third Cinema, edited by Jim Pines and Paul Willemen, (London: BFI, 1989) 1 -

29. Waugh, Thomas. ed., Show Us Life: Toward a Historv and Aesthetics of the Comrnitted

Documentary. (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1988).

Waugh, Thomas. "Words of Comrnand: Notes on Cultural and Political hflections of

Direct Cinema in Indian Independent Documentary". (Cineaction, Winter 1990-

91) 28-39.